The evaluation of learning Learnin g kit

Transcription

Learning kit
The evaluation of learning
Le Carrefour de la réussite au collégial was created by the Fédération des cégeps to
support colleges in the implementation of programs geared to student success. This includes
the organization of conferences, symposiums, thematic workshops, regional meetings and the
development of learning tools for detection and diagnostic purposes.
Le Carrefour has identified eight major improvement axes and developed learning kits that
offer colleges access to improvement activities.
This learning kit is the eighth in the series and deals with the evaluation of learning. It was
developed by Mr. Hermann Guy and its content does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Le
Carrefour or that of La Fédération des cégeps.
Carrefour de la réussite au collégial
March 2004
A word of thanks
Special thanks to Michel Poirier, consultant with Groupe GRA Performa, for his involvement and
valuable contribution and to Pierre Deshaies, educational advisor at Collège de Shawinigan, for his
texts and his ongoing collaboration.
Contributing authors:
We would like to thank the following authors who inspired and enriched this learning kit on “the
evaluation of learning” and their editors who authorized the reproduction of texts, in particular:
D’AMOUR, Cécile and the Groupe de travail Performa, L’évaluation des apprentissages au
collégial : du cours au programme, [s. l.], 1996.
http://www.educ.usherb.ca/performa/documents/fiches/D’Amour et al.htm], Université de
Sherbrooke, Performa.
HOWE, Robert et Louise MÉNARD, “Croyances et pratiques en évaluation des apprentissages”,
Pédagogie collégiale, vol. 7, no 3, 1994, p. 21-27.
LEGENDRE, Marie-Françoise, “Favoriser l’émergence de changements en matière d’évaluation des
apprentissages”, Vie pédagogique, no 120, September-October 2001, p. 15-19.
LOUIS, Roland, L’évaluation des apprentissages en classe : Théorie et pratique, Montréal, Éditions
Études Vivantes, 1999.
Translation by Write2thepoint (write2thept@aol.com)
To avoid redundancy and for ease of reading, the masculine gender is used in this learning kit.
Table of contents
Tab
page
1
General presentation
7
2
Chapter 1:
Beliefs and practices in the evaluation of learning
23
3
Chapter 2:
From teaching to learning: impact on evaluations
49
4
Chapter 3:
The vision and impact of study programs centered on competencies
89
5
Chapter 4:
Definitions and policies relative to the evaluation of
learning
129
6
Chapter 5:
Establishing a general evaluation strategy
171
7
Chapter 6:
Procedures for developing an evaluation
201
8
Chapter 7:
A comprehensive program assessment
313
Complementary documents
355
9
Introduction
Contents of the learning kit
Topics covered in this document
Sensitization activities
Learning tools and support documentation
Mediagraphy
Introduction
The evaluation of learning plays a vital role in pedagogical strategies at all teaching levels: from
primary schools with their new programs, to collegial level with the establishment of programs
defined by competencies. Evaluations have become a major topic of concern today. Change requires
new approaches and an intellectual understanding of new practices is not enough. Individuals must
find meaning in them. As Gerard Scallon writes, the question is not new but the goals are different
and new questions are being raised:
“Why perform an evaluation? ... This is some question! Many answers have been provided and there
is a multitude of works on the subject. Every decade or so, we rewrite the answers based on the
educational system, expectations and ideologies of the time. Like any question, it must be
meaningful at the time it is asked and it must also have meaning for the person asking it. […]
During the last four decades, Quebec’s school system has undergone major changes. Over time, we
have experienced different periods of reflection. Teachers today face major challenges. They must
assimilate programs targeting the development of competencies. New teaching approaches and
practices incorporating project-based learning and student cooperation must be mastered. Teachers
must collaborate with many people both inside and outside the teaching profession. Let us also
underline that evaluations have become the major concern of the hour. It is sometimes necessary to
substitute or integrate totally new approaches to prior knowledge and skills. Knowing “how to
evaluate” is important, but knowing “why to evaluate” is what gives meaning to the evaluation
practice. And, to further complicate matters, the answer is not univocal or completely impartial, since
it belongs to the person doing the evaluation […].
In the past, evaluations were designed to bring pressure to bear, to accelerate the progress. They were
also a symbol of a certain power. This approach to evaluation is gone, or at least dying out.
Evaluation practices have been refined and must now be backed by solid arguments. The idea of
monitoring student progress in order to maximize educational success is now widely accepted as a
guiding principle and integrating concept.”1
1
Translated from Gérard Scallon, “Pourquoi évaluer?… Quelle question!”, Vie pédagogique, no 120, September-October
2001, p. 20-23.
.
Page 7 of 383
Emerging changes
Changing from a program driven by objectives to a program based on the development of
competencies alters the traditional role of evaluations. Learning rather than knowledge becomes the
object of our evaluation. As Marie-Françoise Legendre states, the instructor’s professional judgment
plays a key role:
“To evaluate is to make an assessment without necessarily knowing the consequences that ensue. To
be evaluated has far-reaching consequences (Lemay, 2000). It is therefore not surprising that the
evaluation of learning is seen as a key element in current educational reform.”2
New trends in the evaluation of learning have been part of the Québec pedagogical landscape for
some time now. Their importance is more pronounced today than ever before. However, once the
chaotic implementation stage is over, the desire to understand the nature and basis for change will
become stronger. André Chabot summarizes it this way:
“Generally-speaking, over the last twenty years, the evaluation of learning has experienced
changes in:
— study program structure (competency-based approach)
— learning concepts: from behaviourism to cognitivism and constructivism
— evaluation types: from normative to criteria-based evaluations
— evaluation objectives: from knowledge to competencies
— evaluator’s role: from an individual perspective to a program approach
— evaluation tools: from tests based on knowledge to problem situations
— learning results: from grades expressed in percentages to descriptive results
The main research and pedagogical movements to influence these changes are: cognitive psychology
and the organization of the learner’s prior knowledge, transfer of learning and metacognition (when to
use this or that way of proceeding), motivation and the social context of learning (cooperative
approach).
In the United States and Europe, the movement for authentic evaluations has brought about a
paradigm shift in the role of evaluations. Today an evaluation is seen as a learning tool more than a
selection tool.
An evaluation is authentic when:
— it provides an accurate assessment of student ability to carry out key intellectual
tasks;
— the student can demonstrate his skills and what he has learned;
— the student encounters a broad range of situations that incorporate valid learning
activities, rich and stimulating situations: projects, performance tests,
discussions, etc.;
— the student is allowed to work on improving and fine-tuning his answers (product
or process);
— criteria are used to assess the quality of the response.
2
Translated from Marie-Françoise Legendre, “Favoriser l’émergence de changements en matière d’évaluation des
Page 8 of 383
For some time now, new methods have been used to test the different roles and the timing of
evaluations. New tools such as self-evaluations, networks of concepts and portfolios enable a student
to participate even more actively in his learning through formative and summative evaluations […]
From now on, development relating to the evaluation of learning will be focused on the objects of
evaluation (competency and the process by which students acquire it), the quality of the tools and
results that are communicated to students in an ongoing fashion, according to the competency
profile.”3
The evaluation of learning is a complex part of instructional planning. However, practices are many
and varied and practitioners are not always clear as to the foundations on which they are built. The
competency-based approach that now guides the design of study programs, calls for changes in
current teaching practices.
“The inherent limitations in the widespread use of standardized tests led specialists and teachers to
look for other ways of evaluating student learning. Other factors include the growing influence of
cognitivist thinking and constructivism and an academic curriculum based on competency
development. All of the above have a profound effect on the conception and implementation of the
evaluation of learning.” (Laliberté, 1995)
Influences relative to the evaluation of learning in a general collegial context include: the type of
instruction and the evaluation models used for program development, cognitive psychology and the
new paradigm in the evaluation of learning.
Training at collegial level and the evaluation approach
“The primary goal of college education is to teach students to be autonomous and to resolve complex
problems in a variety of real life and work situations. In a program approach, the disciplines, subject
matter and courses are subordinate to the development of generic, professional and socio-cultural
competencies. The goals are competencies, such as: integration of knowledge, intellectual capacities,
psychomotor and technological skills as well as socioaffective capacities or dispositions that allow for
adequate and effective action, for the analysis and modification of situations (solutions,
improvement), and taking charge of one’s own cultural, social and professional development.
Competency consists in the ability and resources we need to carry out our role and responsibilities, to
accomplish our activities and tasks.
What is of concern at the collegial level is competency as a precursor to mastery, as a potential for
mastery. The challenge in evaluation within an academic framework is the ability to reflect a valid
and accurate image of student competency levels in one or more fields.”4
3
4
Translated from André Chabot, “Les nouvelles tendances en évaluation des apprentissages”, Reflets, vol. 8, no 1,
Cégep de Chicoutimi, December 1997. [http://www2.cgodin.qc.ca/carrefour/lectures.htm].
Translated from François Vasseur et al, “Journée pédagogique portant sur l’élaboration d’un système d’évaluation des
apprentissages dans le cadre de la nouvelle PIEA”, Cégep de La Pocatière, October 1998.
Page 9 of 383
Developmental models for study programs5
When a new program development model is introduced in education, two questions immediately
arise: does the model provide answers to the problems that teachers have identified and how does this
new model differ from previous models? Let us briefly examine these two areas.
In Québec as elsewhere, the first programs were designed around a table of contents specific to
disciplinary subject matter: a succession of components joined into a logical sequence. Instruction
had one goal: to explore a specific content adequately. However we saw that knowledge, even when
taught in a logical way, was not enough for the student to develop competencies; the course had to be
included within a training program.
Thereafter, programs and courses were described in terms of objectives. Inspired by behaviourist
psychology, these programs made it possible to clarify the vagueness of our good intentions vis-à-vis
instruction. Learning objectives were defined, as were student behaviours and evaluation criteria.
However, the learning objectives were so unrelated that one course could contain more than fifty
objectives; additionally, these objectives were parceled out in teaching sequences, like individual
atoms dispersed in space. The result meant losing sight of the real learning objectives in courses and
programs. Finally, the programs were centered on evaluation rather than support for the integration of
learning and the development of complex cognitive capacities.
Chapter 3 of this learning kit deals specifically with the subject of developmental models for study
programs.
Influences of cognitive psychology6
The transition from a pedagogy based on first-generation objectives to a competency-based pedagogy
is related to the evolution of psychology and recent discoveries on the brain and learning. (See the
table on page 15, (The influence of psychology on teaching and learning). Cognitive psychology
concepts are compatible with learning focused on the development of competencies.
Chapter 2 of this kit deals specifically with the influence of cognitive psychology.
An evaluation of learning based on the new paradigm
The recommended evaluation is in line with this new paradigm7:
— the evaluation is appropriate to complex, multidimensional, integrated and
transferable learning;
— the evaluation truly supports learning;
— the summative evaluation results are interpreted versus the targeted results
(interpretation based on evaluation criteria);
— the evaluation supports forward-thinking methodology that values the role of
professional judgment and recognizes student accountability.
5
6
7
Translated from Pierre Deshaies, Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier, “Un modèle d’élaboration des programmes”,
Recueil intégrateur, Section I : Une vision intégrée de la formation au collégial, regroupement des collèges Performa,
2003.
Ibid.
Translated from Cécile D’Amour and Groupe de travail à Performa, L’évaluation des apprentissages au collégial : du
cours au programme, Fascicule II. Cadre de référence. Première partie: Les questions préalables, first edition, [s. l.],
April 1996, p. 15-18.
Page 10 of 383
At collegial level, the evaluation of learning falls under the aegis of the new paradigm; moreover, it
must be carried out in a professional manner and within the program framework.
Chapter 2 of this kit specifically covers the evaluation of learning based on the new paradigm.
Page 11 of 383
Contents of the kit
The evaluation of learning in a competency-based approach raises many questions and the documents
in this kit help provide some answers. The answers are as numerous as the concepts on which the
practices are based.
Underlying learning and evaluation concepts have a strong influence on instruction and evaluation
practices. Useful knowledge in this context is knowledge that allows the teacher to enrich the “frame
of reference” on which he relies to decipher situations and make the right choices. The
implementation of a competency-based program by the teacher implies its necessary interpretation.
What guides the teacher in his interpretation are not only the characteristics of the situation but also
the mental model he creates of it using his frame of reference. This frame of reference is supported
by a whole range of knowledge that is not static but dynamic.
To avoid pitfalls, we must understand underlying concepts and their influence on practices…
There are two major pitfalls in academic reform:
— Reform without change: giving current practices new packaging and rhetoric.
Our way of doing things does not change, only our way of describing the
activities.
— Change without a solid foundation: adopting new practices without
understanding the concepts and principles on which they are based. They change
our way of doing things without necessarily influencing our underlying beliefs.”8
Chapter 1 “Beliefs and practices in the evaluation of learning” makes it possible to actualize the
perception an individual has of evaluation practices and the model he uses.
Chapter 2 “From teaching to learning: impact on evaluations” introduces the basis for change and
allows for the identification of essential characteristics that impact the new paradigm in the evaluation
of learning.
Chapter 3 “The vision and impact of study programs centered on competencies” attempts to describe
and validate the impact of instructional programs targeting the development of competencies.
Chapter 4 “Definitions and policies relative to the evaluation of learning” sheds light on current
evaluation models, principles and policies that guide evaluation practices.
Chapter 5 “Establishing a general evaluation strategy” highlights the importance of a general plan for
the competency assessment, which determines how formative and summative evaluations will be used
in practice.
Chapter 6 “Procedures for developing an evaluation” provides general procedures and detailed steps
for planning an evaluation.
Chapter 7 “The comprehensive program assessment” provides a broad outline for developing a
comprehensive program assessment. This type of evaluation at collegial level will enrich the frame of
reference and relevant practices.
The topics discussed in this document are outlined more explicitly in the following pages.
8
Translated from Marie-Françoise Legendre, “Présentation sur le thème des grandes orientations de la réforme”,
ministère de l’Éducation du Québec, February 15, 2000.
Page 12 of 383
Topics presented in this document
Chapter 1: Beliefs and practices in the evaluation of learning
— My evaluation practices
— My beliefs relative to the evaluation of learning
— Evaluation based on the new paradigm
Chapter 2: From teaching to learning: impact on evaluations
— From a teaching paradigm to a learning paradigm
— A new paradigm in the evaluation of learning
— Bringing change to the evaluation of learning
Chapter 3: The vision and impact of study programs centered on competencies
— Development of a study program
— The concept of competency
— The characteristics of a competency and its influence on planning and evaluation
— The principles connected to competency assessment
— The basic concept of an authentic evaluation
Chapter 4:
Definitions and policies relative to the evaluation of learning
— A definition of the evaluation of learning
— Principles underlying the evaluation of learning
— Principles and rules that guide the evaluation of learning
Chapter 5:
— Planning levels
— Components of a general evaluation strategy
— Development of a general evaluation strategy
Chapter 6:
Procedures for developing an evaluation
— Analyze the targeted learning
— Identify and specify the items to be evaluated
— Choose and validate the tasks and evaluation tools
— Develop tools to collect data and for the evaluation judgment
— Communicate the results and provide students with feedback
Chapter 7:
— The definition of a comprehensive program assessment
— The object of evaluations: essential learning
— Conditions for a valid comprehensive evaluation
Page 13 of 383
— Three grids for evaluation or self-evaluation in a comprehensive program
assessment
The table shown on the next page, The influence of psychology on teaching and learning, summarizes
the influence of behaviourism and cognitive psychology on the concepts of teaching and learning,
students, evaluations and the instructor’s role. A synthesis of the contributions made by these two
psychological approaches helps us better grasp the nature of the changes underway, their pedagogical
components and their impact on the planning of teaching9 activities and the evaluation of learning.
This frame of reference conditions the pedagogical choices discussed in this document.
9
Translated from Pôle de l’Est, “Pour une analyse détaillée des influences de la psychologie cognitive sur la planification de
l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage”, L’enseignement et l’apprentissage : un cadre conceptuel, see Chapter 10, 1992,
p. 195-221.
Page 14 of 383
.
The influence of psychology on teaching and learning
Behaviourism
Cognitive psychology
Concept of teaching
— creation of an environment centered on
the development of behaviour;
— creation of an environment that breaks up
the content;
— creation of an environment that organizes
content as a series of prerequisites;
— creation of a coercive environment by the
teacher.
Concept of teaching
— creation of an environment based on
student’s prior knowledge;
— creation of an environment centered on
cognitive and metacognitive strategies;
— creation of an environment with complete
and complex tasks.
Concept of learning
— learning occurs through the association of
stimulus and response;
— learning is primarily imitation;
— learning is achieved successively.
Concept of learning
— learning occurs through the gradual
increase in knowledge;
— learning occurs when prior knowledge
integrates new information;
— learning requires the organization of
knowledge;
— learning occurs through global tasks.
Concept of teacher’s role
— the teacher intervenes frequently;
— the teacher is a trainer.
Concept of teacher’s role
— the teacher intervenes frequently;
— the teacher is a trainer;
— the teacher is a mediator between
knowledge and the student.
Concept of evaluation
— the evaluations are frequent;
— the evaluation relates to behaviour
displayed;
— the evaluation is often formative,
sometimes summative;
— feedback relates to performance results.
Concept of evaluation
— the evaluations are frequent;
— the evaluations relate to knowledge as
well as cognitive and metacognitive
strategies;
— the evaluation is often formative,
sometimes summative;
— feedback is centered on the strategies
being used;
— feedback is focused on the construction of
knowledge.
Concept of learner
— the learner responds to environmental
stimuli;
— the learner is reactive;
— the learner is motivated by external
factors.
Concept of learner
— the learner participates actively;
— the learner demonstrates a constructive
attitude;
— the learner is motivated in part by his
perception of the value of the task and by
the control he has over his success.
Translated from an adaptation by Tardif (1992)
Translated from Pôle de lest, Processus de planification d’un cours centré sur le développement d’une compétence,
regroupement des collèges Performa, December 1996, p. 9.
Page 15 of 383
Sensitization activities
Activity 1:
Activity 1.1:
Activity 1.2:
Evaluation practices
My beliefs concerning the evaluation of learning
Activity 2:
Characteristics of an evaluation of learning marked by the new
paradigm
Activity 3:
Characteristics of competencies and their impact on course planning
and the evaluation of learning
Activity 3.1:
Activity 3.2:
Activity 3.3:
Activity 4:
Activity 4.1:
Activity 4.2:
Activity 5:
Activity 5.1:
Activity 5.2:
Activity 5.3:
Activity 5.4:
Activity 6:
Activity 6.1:
Activity 6.2:
Activity 6.3:
Activity 6.4:
Activity 6.5:
Activity 7:
Study programs and the concept of competency
Characteristics of a competency and their impact
Principles related to competency assessment and the contribution of
an authentic assessment
Definition and policies which guide the evaluation of learning
Definitions
Policy
General evaluation strategy
Example of a general evaluation strategy
Planning levels
Components of a general evaluation strategy
The development of a general evaluation strategy
Planning the evaluation for the final exam
The training objective
The objects of evaluation, performance indicators and evaluation
criteria
The evaluative task
The marking grid
Communicating the results
Evaluating a comprehensive program assessment
Page 16 of 383
Learning tools and documents
The number of the learning tools and documents corresponds to the sensitization activity number.
— Learning tool 1.A:
— Learning tool 1.B:
The evaluation of learning based on the new paradigm
— Learning tool 1.C:
Self-evaluation of beliefs relative the evaluation of
learning
— Learning tool 1.D:
“Beliefs and practices in the evaluation of learning”
— Complementary document 1:
Student perceptions and expectations
— For reference:
Results of the research on “Beliefs and practices in the
evaluation of learning”
From a teaching paradigm to a learning paradigm
Summary of the characteristics of the two paradigms
Statements for discussion
Summary of the characteristics of learning evaluations
based on the new paradigm
— Document 2.A:
A new paradigm in the evaluation of learning
— Document 2.B:
To support the emergence of change in the evaluation of
learning
— Document 2.C:
To bring changes to the evaluation of learning
Alternate ways of designing and evaluating learning
Development of a study program
Definition of a competency
Characteristics of a competency and their impact on
course planning and the evaluation of learning
Characteristics of a competency and their impact on
course planning
— Learning tool 3.E:
Characteristics of a competency and their impact on the
evaluation of learning
— Learning tool 3.F:
Principles connected to competency assessment
— Learning tool 3.G:
The authentic evaluation
— Learning tool 3.H:
Tension between traditional and modern ways of thinking
— Document 3.A:
— Document 3.B:
Assessment in authentic situations: underlying principles
Page 17 of 383
LASNIER, François, Principles of an evaluation in
competency-based learning (Competency Based Training)
linked to principles of competency-based learning
A definition of the evaluation of learning
Guiding principles for the evaluation of learning
Definitions applicable to the evaluation of learning
Comparing three types of evaluations
Principles and rules that govern my actions
— Document 4.A:
“Principles and rules which guide the evaluation
of learning”
— Supporting document: Document 2.C: “To bring changes to the evaluation of learning”
Example of a general evaluation strategy and related
documentation
Course planning levels: from ministerial specifications to
Lesson planning
Course planning based on competency development
The components and tools pertinent to a general evaluation
strategy
From planning stages to the evaluation plan for the final
course test
Procedures for developing an evaluation plan and tools for
collecting data and making judgments
Tasks for the analysis of a learning target
Tool for the analysis of a competency
Tasks to identify objects of evaluation
Tasks appropriate for the evaluation of learning
— Learning tool 6.F:
The description of an authentic situation
— Learning tool 6.G:
Guidelines for choosing evaluation methods
— Learning tool 6.H:
Tasks to build data collection tools
—
Sample marking grid designed at Cégep Saint-Laurent
Learning tool 6.I:
— Learning tool 6.J:
Tasks to communicate evaluation results
— Document 6.A:
Tools for evaluations in authentic situations
— Document 6.B:
How to assess competencies
The definition of a comprehensive program assessment
Objects of evaluation: essential learning
The exit profile
What is evaluated is being taught
Page 18 of 383
The grid of shared responsibilities for instruction
A valid comprehensive program assessment:
Prerequisites
The preparation of the student throughout program
The choice of evaluation test
Sample comprehensive program assessment
Three grids for evaluation or self-evaluation within a
comprehensive assessment
The evaluation of learning at collegial level: from course to
program
Page 19 of 383
Mediagraphy
CHABOT, André, “Les nouvelles tendances en évaluation des apprentissages ”, Reflets, vol. 8, no 1,
Cégep de Chicoutimi, December 1997. [http://www2.cgodin.qc.ca/carrefour/lectures.htm]
D’AMOUR, Cécile, Principes et règles d’action qui devraient guider l’évaluation des
apprentissages, Session de perfectionnement, Cégep de l’Abitibi-Témincamingue, 1995.
D’AMOUR, Cécile et Groupe de recherche à Performa, L’évaluation des apprentissages au
collégial : du cours au programme,
-
Fascicule I. La problématique, [s. l.], April 1996, 66 p.
-
Fascicule II. Cadre de référence. Première partie : Les questions préalables, 85 p.
-
Fascicule III-IV – section 1. Avenues quant au comment faire. Comment faire l’évaluation
des apprentissages? Comment faire l’animation pédagogique sur ce thème?, January 1997,
multiple pages.
-
Fascicule III-IV – section 2. Avenues quant au comment faire. Comment faire l’évaluation
des apprentissages? Comment faire l’animation pédagogique sur ce thème?, January 1997,
multiple pages.
-
Appendices, [s. l.], January 1997, Table of contents, multiple pages.
[http://www.educ.usherb.ca/performa/documents/fiches/D_Amour_et_al.htm], Université de
Sherbrooke, Performa.
D’AMOUR, Cécile, Les pratiques d’évaluation dans le département de chimie en fonction des
compétences, Activité de perfectionnement, Collège de Bois-de-Boulogne, Performa, 1995.
DESHAIES, Pierre, Hermann GUY et Michel POIRIER, Recueil intégrateur
- Section 1 : Un cadre de référence sur la formation au collégial
- Section 2 : L’élaboration locale d’un programme d’études
- Section 3 : La planification de l’enseignement centré sur le développement des compétences
- Section 4 : L’évaluation des apprentissages centrés sur le développement de compétences
- Section 5 : Le suivi de l’implantation d’un programme d’études
(appearing soon), regroupement des collèges Performa, Sherbrooke.
DESHAIES, Pierre. Évaluer de façon formative et sommative, document produced within the
framework of MIPEC/PED-858/Outils de formation, version 2, Collège Shawinigan,
Fall 2002.
HOUART, Mireille,
Évaluer
des
compétences.
Oui,
mais… comment?.
[http://www.det.fundp.ac.be/~mho/assessment.htm], Département Éducation et Technologie,
Namur, FUNDP.
HOWE, Robert, “Un nouveau paradigme en évaluation des apprentissages”, Pédagogie collégiale,
vol. 6, no 3, 1993.
HOWE, Robert et Louise MÉNARD, “Croyances et pratiques en évaluation des apprentissages”,
recherche PAREA, Laval, Collège Montmorency, 1993.
Page 20 of 383
HOWE, Robert et Louise MÉNARD, “Croyances et pratiques en évaluation des apprentissages ”,
Pédagogie collégiale, vol. 7, no 3, 1994, p. 21-27.
LAFORTUNE, Louise et Colette DAUDELIN, Accompagnement socioconstructiviste. Pour
s’approprier une réforme en éducation, Sainte-Foy, Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2001,
p. 109 et 110.
LALIBERTÉ, Jacques, “D’autres façons de concevoir et de faire l’évaluation des apprentissages ”,
Pédagogie collégiale, 1995.
LEGENDRE, Marie-Francoise, “Présentation sur le thème des grandes orientations de la réforme ”,
Québec, ministère de l’Éducation du Québec, February 15, 2000.
LEGENDRE, Marie-Francoise, “Favoriser l’émergence de changements en matière d’évaluation des
apprentissages ”, Vie pédagogique, no 120, September-October 2001, p. 15-19.
LOUIS, Roland, L’évaluation des apprentissages en classe : Théorie et pratique, Montréal, Éditions
Études Vivantes, 1999.
MARTEL, Angéline, La transition des instructivismes aux constructivismes par les technologies de la
communication au service de l’enseignement/apprentissage à distance, 2002.
[http://www.refad.ca/constructivisme.html], Télé-université.
PÔLE DE L’EST, “Pour une analyse détaillée des influences de la psychologie cognitive sur la
planification de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage ”, L’enseignement et l’apprentissage :
un cadre conceptuel, most of Chapter10, 1992, p. 195-221.
PÔLE DE L’EST, Processus de planification d’un cours centré sur le développement d’une
compétence, regroupement des collèges Performa, December 1996, p. 9.
SCALLON, Gérard, “Pourquoi évaluer… Quelle question! ” Vie pédagogique, no 120, SeptemberOctober 2001, p. 20-23.
VASSEUR, François et autres, “Journée pédagogique portant sur l’élaboration d’un système
d’évaluation des apprentissages within the framework of the new PIEA ”, La Pocatière,
Cégep de La Pocatière, October 1998.
Page 21 of 383
Recommended reading
HOULE, Dominique, Robert HOWE and Louise MÉNARD, “Les grilles d’observation pour évaluer
les apprentissages ”, Pédagogie collégiale, vol. 11, no 4, May 1998, p. 10-1510.
JONNAERT, Philippe, Compétences et socioconstructivisme, un cadre théorique, Éditions de Boeck,
Bruxelles, 2002, p. 34-4011 et p. 76-7912.
LASNIER, François, Réussir la formation par compétences, Guérin, Montréal, 2000, p. 434-43713.
LOUIS, Roland, L’évaluation des apprentissages en classe : Théorie et pratique, Éditions Études
Vivantes, Montréal, 1999, p. 77-9814.
MUNN, Joanne et Pierrette JALBERT, Les grilles d’observation, Société GRICS, Fall 2001, 14 p.15.
PÔLE DE L’EST, Processus de planification d’un cours centré sur le développement d’une
compétence, regroupement des collèges Performa, December 1996, p. 150-17716.
WIGGINS, Grant, Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student
Performance, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass17.
WIGGINS, Grant, The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Assessment,
2 (2), 1999. [http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp? v=2&n=2]18
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Article on developing an observation grid applied to the evaluation of stages in nursing
Pay particular attention to section 3 of chapter 2 relating to the concept of competency and new study programs
Pay particular attention to the summary of chapter 4 entitled “Comment peut-on aborder le concept de compétence
dans une perspective socioconstructiviste?”
Pay particular attention to appendix D recommending various formative evaluation strategies
Pay particular attention to chapter 7 on evaluating in authentic cases and the construction of evaluation tasks
Text showing the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses in various observation grids with procedures to build and
validate descriptive scale grids.
Pay particular attention to chapter 7 on the evaluation of competency
A recognized reference relative to the evaluation of learning
Text including the definition and characteristics of the authentic evaluation
Page 22 of 383
Chapter 1
“For several years now, many researchers have put forth theories to explain how evaluation practices
are used in the classroom. These theories tend to show that beliefs and attitudes are among the
principal determinants of evaluation practices and that, in fact, beliefs underlying attitudes are also
behind personal evaluation practices.
If our beliefs have been the basis of our actions and attitudes for a long time, if they have given us
satisfaction and if the results have been able to provide answers to our questions, direct us and
stabilize us … it will be difficult for us to accept to change them.
The more anchored the beliefs, the more a person tends to use cognitive strategies to protect these
beliefs. This is the type of action taken when someone wants his beliefs to survive even if they are
proven false. Therefore, if we want to improve a teacher’s competency relative to the evaluation of
learning, we must take into account his current practices and the way he does things. It is also
necessary to understand the beliefs behind the practices.”19
Two sensitization activities introduce this topic:
Activity 1.1: “Evaluation practices” are to some extent, a diagnostic evaluation that allows
participants to express their concepts and perceptions concerning evaluation practices, and then to
validate or invalidate them by comparing them to those of other participants.
Activity 1.2: “My beliefs concerning the evaluation of learning” allow us to position our beliefs and
practices relative to the evaluation of learning.
As a complement to activity 1.2, the text “Student perceptions and expectations” (complementary
document 1) discusses the way students experience the evaluation of learning, and broaches the
question of the impact the evaluation of learning is likely to have on the student’s life:
— within the academic framework (their vision of the academic institution, evaluations and
study behaviours);
— within the framework of academic and professional orientation (their aspirations, studies
and career path); and
— relative to their expectations of evaluations, which in turn tells us something about their
conceptions.
Lastly, learning tool 1.D documents the results of research on the “Beliefs and practices in the
evaluation of learning” and is instrumental in clarifying the beliefs behind our practices.
19
Translated from Robert Howe and Louise Ménard, “Croyances et pratiques en évaluation des apprentissages”,
Pédagogie collégiale, vol. 7, no 3, March 1994, p. 21-27.
Page 23 of 383
Chapter synopsis:
Activity 1:
Activity 1.1:
Activity 1.2:
Learning tools:
Learning tool 1.A:
Learning tool 1.B:
Learning tool 1.C:
Self-evaluation of beliefs relative the evaluation of learning
Learning tool 1.D:
Complementary documents:
Complementary document 1:
Student perceptions and expectations
Reference:
Results of research on “Beliefs and practices in the
Page 24 of 383
Activity 1.1
Heading
Objective
To identify prior knowledge concerning evaluation practices.
To express concepts and identify evaluation practices used by colleagues.
Description
This activity is to some extent a diagnostic evaluation that allows participants
to express their concepts and perceptions relative to evaluation practices and
then to validate or invalidate them by comparing them to those of other
participants.
Unfolding
A. Each participant completes a questionnaire on his own (Learning tool
1.A). Approximately twenty minutes.
B. The resource person compiles the answers to question IV in order to get a
global picture.
C. Team discussions if number of participants permits; if not, group
discussions for all questions. For each question, the resource person may
present the table of compiled answers.
D. Presents an overview of general evaluation practices.
E. The resource person introduces the ‘new’ characteristics in the evaluation
of learning by distributing learning tool 1.B to each participant.
Moderator’s role
To create a climate favourable for reflection.
To encourage participants to ask questions.
To accept answers without judgment.
To support the interaction of all participants.
To frequently summarize what has been said, this allows individuals to recall
and identify their concepts and practices more readily.
Participants’ role
To openly express their concepts.
To interact with other participants.
To examine past experience to identify the concepts behind their evaluation
practices.
To make a personal diagnosis on their evaluation practices.
Pedagogical
material
Learning tool 1.A:
Learning tool 1.B:
Learning tool 1.C:
Learning tool 1.D:
Self-evaluation of beliefs relative the evaluation of
learning
Complementary
document
Complementary document 1: Student perceptions and expectations.
Approximate
duration
3 hours
Page 25 of 383
Activity 1.2
Heading
Objective
To identify personal beliefs relative to the evaluation of learning practices.
Description
Beliefs and attitudes are among the principal determinants of evaluation
practices; in fact, beliefs determine attitudes and from these, practices are
born.
This activity intends primarily to identify beliefs and to validate them through
exchanges with colleagues and within the framework of the new evaluation
paradigm.
Unfolding
A. Each participant completes a questionnaire “Self-evaluation of beliefs in
the evaluation of learning” (Learning tool 1.C). It is preferable to have the
questionnaire completed prior to the initial activity. This makes it possible
to produce a summary of answers.
B. Summary and pooling of evaluation practices category by category.
C. Beliefs are validated initially during peer interaction. Finally, personal
results are compared to the research results found in learning tool 1.D.
D. At the end of the session, participants are led to assess their perceptions
and attitudes in light of their personal beliefs.
Moderator’s role
To create a climate favourable for reflection.
To accept answers without judgment.
To express their beliefs openly.
To identify what their personal practices reveal about their beliefs.
Pedagogical
material
Learning tool 1.C: Self-evaluation of beliefs relative to the evaluation of
learning
Learning tool 1.D: Results of research on “Beliefs and practices in the
Complementary
document
Complementary document 1: Student perceptions and expectations.
Although the following article is not included in the learning kit, it discusses
the results of research and can be beneficial for readers: Robert Howe and
Louise Ménard, “Croyances et pratiques en évaluation des apprentissages”,
Approximate
duration
3 hours
Page 26 of 383
Learning tool 1. A
Evaluation practices20
A few clues on where to start
Responses should be spontaneous. As the title suggests the goal is to collect data that will help
position ourselves relative to various questions on evaluation practices and to validate our reflections
with colleagues.
I. Are you completely satisfied with the way in which you evaluate learning in your courses?
____________
If you are dissatisfied, indicate the kind of dissatisfaction you are experiencing and its cause.
II. Is it your impression that the evaluation of learning is done in an equivalent manner by different
professors who teach the same course? ________
On what do you base this belief?
III. Does the evaluation of learning in a course geared towards competency development imply
major changes in evaluation practices? _________
What are the similarities and the differences? Name some new practices.
20
Translated from Cécile D’Amour, Les pratiques d’évaluation dans le département de chimie en fonction des
compétences, Activité de perfectionnement, Collège de Bois-de-Boulogne, May 1995.
Page 27 of 383
IV. Indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements by placing a checkmark
in the appropriate box. Make notes on your comments for the group discussion.
Statements
1.
The evaluation of learning is a process that must be transparent,
precise and hold no surprises.
2.
The evaluation of learning must relate only to objectives that are
explicitly defined and respected.
3.
Student evaluation results in a classroom, should follow the
normal curve.
4.
Within our courses, some learning can be so important that nonmastery of that subject matter leads to automatic failure.
5.
Student attendance should not have an effect on the grade given
for any evaluation or for the entire course.
6.
The objectives and evaluation requirements should be identical
for all class groups for a given course, and evaluation methods
should be equivalent.
7.
Every course should end with a final exam to verify that
essential learning has been mastered.
8.
Passing the final exam should be a prerequisite for successful
completion of the course.
9.
The final grade assigned must reflect as accurately as possible
the level of mastery of learning at end of course, and must mean
the same thing for all students.
disagree
to be
discussed
agree
completely
10. Activities relative to formative evaluations are of key
importance.
11. There should be very few summative evaluations. These
evaluations must apply to the course in its entirety or to complete
course segments.
12. When an evaluation has been administered to a group of
students, the teacher must take the necessary means to evaluate
the performance of each individual student; he cannot attribute
an identical grade to all based on the quality of a collective
production.
13. The requirements of the evaluation should be adjusted from one
class to another, based on group ability.
14. The final grade assigned to a student who has completed the
course cannot simply be the sum of grades assigned for various
exams throughout the course; the professor is the one who must
decide the student’s final grade.
Page 28 of 383
V. The purpose of this question is to establish the degree of familiarity with terminology currently
used in the evaluation of learning.
Working with the following table, identify all the components of the second column that relate to each of
those in the first column:
1: _____________________________________________
2: _____________________________________________
3: _____________________________________________
1.
The diagnostic evaluation …
2.
The formative evaluation …
3.
The summative evaluation …
A.
Assesses the degree of achievement of learning at the end of
the process.
B.
Is used to identify adjustments required in the learning or
teaching process.
C.
Should be frequent.
D.
Belongs at the end of a course or after a pivotal or complete
section.
E.
Is particularly important at the start of the course.
F.
Is used to justify advancement, equivalency and certification.
G.
Should be integrated into teaching and learning processes.
H.
Helps to adjust the course to students’ level of acquisitions
upon entry.
VI. In the table below, associate a component in the first column to one of the components in the
second column:
1: ____________________________
2: ____________________________
The evaluation is said to be
1. criteria-based when …
2. normative when…
… established by comparing a student’s level of learning at a given
time with
a.
a prior level of learning
b.
other students’ level of learning
c.
a pre-established threshold of success
VII. What is the best method for evaluating the level of mastery of a competency?
Page 29 of 383
Learning tool 1.B
The evaluation of learning based on the new paradigm21
The evaluation of learning at collegial level is now driven by the new paradigm. It must be carried out
with professionalism and within a program perspective.
We are recommending that the evaluation of learning be re-examined within the perspective of the
new paradigm, because it seems to adequately resolve the problem elements we have identified:
—
—
—
—
the “professionalization” of the teacher’s role;
the changing nature of learning objectives;
increased requirements relative to the quality and validity of the evaluation of learning;
emerging postulates of the new epistemology, psychology of learning and education
sciences; etc.
We will constantly refer to traces of these four perspectives that characterize the new paradigm.
The evaluation we propose has the following characteristics:
1.
An evaluation adapted to a competency-based approach, relating therefore to complex
multidimensional, integrated and transferable learning that from a methodological perspective,
implies an evaluation that is:
—
global, multidimensional,
—
contextualized,
—
a true opportunity for students to demonstrate their competency, while ensuring
standardization of the conditions for success and evaluation criteria.
2. An evaluation that truly serves the purpose of learning, an evaluation integrated into teaching
and learning processes: to guide, support, assist students in assuming responsibility for their
learning and, finally, determine what learning has been acquired;
from a methodological perspective, it implies an evaluation that:
21
—
is dynamic rather than static, combines snapshots of specific moments to create a portrait of
the learning taking place, focuses not only on the results but also on the process used to
achieve them;
—
is conducted within a didactic framework and not exclusively docimological;
—
is used not only to create benchmarks or make a judgment but also for diagnostic purposes;
—
is readily adapted to the pursuit of learning;
—
takes into account not only the cognitive but also the affective dimension;
—
uses a diversity of evaluation methods (teacher who guides the learning, other teachers,
students, evaluators outside the academic environment);
Translated from Cécile D’Amour and Groupe de travail à Performa, L’évaluation des apprentissages au collégial from
the program course, Fascicule II. Cadre de référence. Première partie: Les questions préalables, First edition [s. l.],
April 1996, p. 15-18.
Page 30 of 383
—
does not make a final judgment on the acquired learning until the end of the learning
period;
3. An evaluation based on criteria where judgment is based on the achievement of learning
objectives rather than the classification of students in relation to others (normative evaluation).
from a methodological perspective, it implies an evaluation that:
— is focused on validity rather than discrimination;
— uses qualitative approaches and descriptive methods;
4. A forward-thinking methodology that upgrades the role of professional judgment and
recognizes student responsibility, a methodology that is adapted and thorough:
adapted
—
to the first three characteristics identified;
—
to the purpose of the evaluation in question: supports the learning process or learning
certificate;
thorough, which implies
—
that judgment can assume its rightful role;
—
that the methods and learning tools (scales, calculations, etc.) are employed under their
appropriate conditions of use.
An evaluation of learning carried out in a professional manner
Like other components of teaching, the evaluation of learning must be carried out in a professional
manner, that is to say, seriously and in good faith. It must also be done responsibly, relying on a
specific competency in the field (one that is acquired or to be acquired, maintained and developed),
using existing margins of flexibility to ensure the most appropriate methods are used for each
individual learning situation, ensuring a continued evolution of evaluation practices, respecting
ethical principles, agreeing to accountability for our actions. With regard to the evaluation of
learning, assuming full responsibility means accepting to make an evaluation judgment: we believe
this is one of the major issues at stake in changing current practices.
An evaluation of learning carried out within a program perspective
To increase the odds of students completing their study program with the desired “profile”, the
evaluation of learning like other interventions, must be conceived and carried out within a program
perspective.
What exactly does this mean?
— The methods of evaluation for all courses should be coherent and articulate to motivate
students to concentrate their efforts on learning and help them integrate this learning
rather than compartmentalize it.
— Within the framework of each individual course, evaluation activities should support
learning so that the course effectively contributes what it is supposed to contribute to the
training and to ensure that the learning acquired cumulatively throughout the courses is
integrated as effectively as possible.
— The results of the summative evaluation carried out in each course should accurately
reflect the level of learning mastered by each student, so that in subsequent courses, we
can count on a certain basis of acquired knowledge.
Page 31 of 383
— In planning for the evaluation of learning — as in the planning of learning interventions –
objectives that require the contribution of several courses should be given particular
attention: formative and summative evaluations should be designed to encompass all the
courses to assist in reaching these objectives and their final certification.
— Furthermore, evaluation methods should be based on the students’ level of
development, keeping in mind that this level will increase as students advance in the
program; evaluations must maximize the development of self-evaluation and
metacognitive skills.
In summary, overall evaluation interventions should contribute to the integration of learning
throughout the program.
The comprehensive evaluation at the end of the program, could then officially attest to the degree of
mastery and level of integration of essential learning for each student at the end of the learning
process.
For discussion purposes, use the chart on the next page.
Page 32 of 383
Chart
Perspectives for change
Statements with which you agree; that represent a particular
difficulty for you; or that lead you to question your practices
— An evaluation adapted
to a competency-based
approach
— An evaluation that truly
serves the purpose of
learning
— A criteria-based
evaluation
— A forward-thinking
methodology that
upgrades the role of
professional judgment
and recognizes student
accountability
— An evaluation carried
out in a professional
manner
— An evaluation carried
out within a program
perspective
Page 33 of 383
Learning tool 1.C
Self-evaluation of beliefs relative to the evaluation of learning22
Beliefs, as described in the text of Howe and Ménard (1993), have a determining influence on
attitudes and behaviours. It is essential to make our beliefs explicit if we wish to modify and improve
our evaluation of learning practices. The exercise below23 is intended to highlight some of these
beliefs and therefore allow us to measure them against the new paradigm in the evaluation of learning.
For each statement, indicate your level of agreement or disagreement:
AC
Agree completely
A
Agree
D
Disagree
DC
Disagree completely
NC
No comment
Compare your answers with the results obtained by Howe and Ménard in their research among college
professors. Please refer to learning tool 1.D. The classification categories correspond to the six fields
of competency evaluations described by Stiggins (1991)24. The authors comment on the choices they
made subsequent to their research:
“Within the framework of research in progress, Louise Ménard and I had to find a system that
permitted a classification by categories of many statements regarding beliefs and practices in the field
of learning assessment in the classroom. Documentation on the subject revealed several
categorizations that are adaptable to the evaluation of beliefs and practices. We chose four approaches
(Fontaine, 1988; Stiggins, 1991; American Federation of Teachers, 1990 and Schafer, 1991) and
studied them, our goal being to adopt one of these systems.
We finally chose the typology of competency fields recommended by Stiggins (1991) because, with
six key components, it enables us to answer the three primary questions of our research. They are: the
“why”,” what” and “how” of assessment in the classroom. The categories identified by Stiggins within
a competency-based evaluation of learning, appear not only pertinent to the goal of our research but
also in the description of knowledge, skills and attitudes that teachers should develop in the field of
measurement and assessment in the classroom. In my opinion, these six fields of competency
represent a valid structure to analyze assessment practices of teachers in the classroom and to guide
the planning of improvement activities.”
The typology (on the following page) is presented because of its value and usefulness in research and
in teacher education. A detailed description of these categories can be found in the above-mentioned
research.
22
23
24
Translated from Robert Howe and Louise Ménard, Croyances et pratiques en évaluation des apprentissages, PAREA
research, Laval, Collège Montmorency, 404, 1993.
Translated from an activity designed by Germain Perreault, Collège de la Région de l’Amiante and Hélène Servais,
Cégep Limoilou.
R. J. Stiggins, “Relevant classroom evaluation training for teachers”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,
vol. 10, no 1, March 1991, p. 7-12.
Page 34 of 383
The categories identified by Stiggins
In “Relevant Classroom Assessment Training for Teachers”, Stiggins (1991) suggests a
description of the competency domains for teachers relative to the measurement and
evaluation of learning in the classroom. These domains form an excellent structure consisting
of six categories that facilitate the analysis of practices and beliefs in assessment and also
guide the planning of improvement activities.
The use of assessment in the classroom
Based on Stiggins’ observations, teachers use evaluation of learning to respond to three
needs: a) to support decisions, b) to guide teaching and learning, c) to manage the classroom.
To use the evaluation of learning competently within the framework of these separate needs,
teachers must be assessment-literate and understand the role of assessment as well as its
educational and pedagogical impact on teaching and learning.
— Assessment objectives
Stiggins’ second category deals with the specific areas targeted by assessments. The areas
generally evaluated by teachers are: knowledge of subject matter, skills, higher cognitive
skills and attitudes. The teacher must clearly understand what he seeks to assess and use
appropriate assessment methods.
— Assessment qualities
The characteristics of a sound assessment vary according to the context. However, some
quality standards are common to all assessment situations: the connection between the field to
be evaluated and the measurement tool used; control over margins of error in measurement;
the reconciliation between targeted learning and assessment results; information with
meaning that is clear to both students and teachers.
— Assessment tools
According to Stiggins, teachers use at least three types of assessment tools in the classroom:
learning tools like "paper and pencil”, observation and verbal exchanges.
All these assessment tools can be used correctly or incorrectly. Each method has distinct
advantages and disadvantages and can be more or less appropriate for a particular context.
Teachers must know how to make assessments while recognizing that the rules of validity
may vary from one assessment to another.
— The interpersonal dimension of assessments
A classroom assessment implies highly complex interpersonal exchanges. The assessment is
rarely scientific, objective and detached in this type of environment. On the contrary, it is
linked to all kinds of variables (motivation, concepts of teaching and learning, emotional
aspect of the assessment, etc.) that come into play before, during, and after the actual
assessment.
— Feedback in the classroom
Teachers provide feedback on assessment results on a continuous basis. According to
Stiggins, teachers must assign grades that are pertinent so that the feedback is without
ambiguity. It is also important that all aspects of the feedback correspond specifically to the
objectives, be given in a timely manner and be meaningful for the student.
Page 35 of 383
Category 1: Classroom evaluation practices
AC
1.
The best way to motivate students is to assign grades to
their work.
2.
Being evaluated motivates students to devote more
energy to their studies.
3.
Evaluations must be frequent to help students identify
weaknesses quickly.
4.
Evaluations are used to identify student strengths and
weaknesses relative to the learning to be acquired.
5.
Evaluations must be used to classify students relative
to each other rather than identify learning they have
acquired.
6.
If I could, I would never give examinations.
7.
A grade should not be assigned in a formative
examination.
8.
Evaluation is an integral part of instruction.
9.
Evaluations must be frequent so that student’s work is
consistent.
10.
Evaluation practices at collegial level often favour
short-term versus long-term learning.
11.
Evaluations are not learning activities.
12.
I evaluate the academic output of my students to meet
college administrative requirements.
13.
All work done by the student in and outside of the
classroom deserves to be evaluated and graded.
A
D
DC
NC
Comments
Page 36 of 383
Category 2: Evaluation targets
AC
1.
A
D
DC
NC
It is practically impossible to get evaluation results
that accurately reflect student learning.
In determining the final grade, it is important to evaluate each of the following items
(questions 2 to 6):
2.
Attitudes (personal conduct)
3.
Skills, procedures
4.
Knowledge (learning)
5.
Critical thinking
6.
Skills in analysis, synthesis and problem solving
7.
To evaluate is to give an examination on everything
said and done in the classroom.
8.
It is not fair to ask questions beyond the subject
matter taught.
9.
It is not necessary for the evaluation to cover all
aspects of the subject matter.
10.
It is impossible at collegial level to evaluate both
student understanding and knowledge of the subject
matter.
11.
It is more important to evaluate the understanding of
the subject matter than knowledge of the facts.
12.
At collegial level, the higher cognitive skills
(analysis, synthesis, problem solving) are the areas
that should be evaluated.
Comments
Page 37 of 383
Category 3: Evaluation qualities
AC
1.
After an examination, it is useful to analyze my
questions to gauge their value.
2.
It is advisable to have examination questions checked
by a second specialist in the subject matter.
3.
All students should be evaluated using the same criteria.
4.
It is practically impossible to achieve evaluation results
that accurately reflect student learning.
5.
It is necessary to evaluate frequently to obtain reliable
results.
6.
My examinations are effective and tell me what I want
to know.
7.
When I evaluate my course achievement objectives, I
am on solid ground.
8.
It is sometimes necessary to modify the evaluation
criteria during grading.
9.
It is necessary to establish evaluation criteria before the
start of grading.
10.
It is impossible to establish evaluation criteria before
the start of grading.
A
D
DC
NC
Different criteria should be used for different groups of students:
11.
The more gifted should work harder to earn a higher
grade.
12.
We should be less demanding of the less gifted so that
they may achieve higher grades.
13.
The students who focus all their skills and aptitudes
should receive higher grades than those who do not.
Comments
Page 38 of 383
Category 4: Evaluation tools
AC
1.
Only questions requiring development can measure
essential learning.
2.
All examinations should allow open textbooks.
3.
All evaluations should be self-evaluations.
4.
Multiple-choice questions favour the evaluation of
memorized knowledge.
5.
Assessment exams at end of session should be
obligatory in almost all disciplines.
6.
Multiple-choice questions can measure
understanding of the subject matter.
7.
It is almost impossible to write examination
questions that measure higher cognitive skills.
8.
Only research work or the realization of a project
can truly measure the level of achievement of course
objectives.
9.
Examinations with multiple choice questions
measure essential learning better than questions
requiring development.
A
D
DC
NC
the
Comments
Page 39 of 383
Category 5: Interpersonal dimensions of evaluation
AC
A
D
DC
NC
It is important to not raise or lower a student’s
grade as a means of encouragement or to
motivate him to work harder.
The final report card grade could be increased as a reward for:
1.
the student’s active participation in the
classroom.
2.
the effort put forth.
3.
student progress throughout the entire session
(evolution).
4.
student creativity.
5.
student attendance at all courses.
6.
When grading questions requiring development,
knowing respondent’s identity can influence me.
The final report card grade could be lowered as a penalty for:
7.
non-justified absences.
8.
absence or lack of effort on student’s part.
9.
lack of discipline in class.
10.
plagiarism.
Comments
Page 40 of 383
Category 6: Feedback and grading
AC
1.
Professors should provide written comments on
students work.
2.
The majority of students read the comments
written by their professors.
3.
The average class grade is a direct reflection on the
quality of the instruction.
4.
In a group, the distribution of the grades should
follow the normal Bell curve: only a few students
should have very high or very low grades.
5.
At my college, the criteria for success or failure are
generally: (choose one)
a.
much too lenient, generous
b.
too demanding
c.
adequate
6.
Grading is a handicap to instruction.
7.
Some professors evaluate and assign grades
because they have to and consequently, do so
quickly to get it over with.
8.
The grades I assign are not really indicative of
what my students have learned.
9.
When grading, the good or bad results obtained by
the student in evaluations at the beginning of the
instruction must be taken into account.
10.
It is necessary to avoid performing evaluations that
involve the teacher’s personal judgment and
subjectivity.
11.
Grades should reflect the number or percentage of
objectives achieved by my students.
A
D
DC
NC
Comments
Page 41 of 383
Learning tool 1.D
“Beliefs and practices in the evaluation of learning”25
Summary table of research results26
The evaluation of learning is an integral part of what teachers do. It is of key importance in improving
the quality of learning (and teaching) during training and in validating the quality of learning at the
end of training.
Professors at collegial level have always been responsible for the evaluation of learning. This
responsibility is a visible and credible demonstration of the professional competency of professors,
and this competency, far from being definitively acquired and static, must be the object of pertinent
and regular updates.
The research of Howe and Ménard (1994) highlighted inadequate practices as well as erroneous
thinking regarding the evaluation of learning. Certain methods are suggested and their
implementation should rest on an understanding of beliefs and practices. For this purpose, the
questionnaire can be used locally as a research tool to identify the practices and beliefs of all
professors at a college or within a department. The authors list a number of main objectives for
training and/or improvement activities:
—
to better grasp concepts, in particular the concept of formative evaluation;
—
to support the greater use of formative evaluations;
—
to question the use of evaluations as a means of managing a class and the validity of
grade adjustments;
—
to better understand the various tools than can be used to evaluate learning;
—
to develop validation practices and improvement activities for evaluation tools.
The authors conclude: “the evaluation of learning is not the answer to everything; but several authors
have shown the tremendous influence that evaluation practices and beliefs have on all aspects of
teaching and learning” (Stiggins, 1992; Crooks, 1988). Any intervention that improves the ability to
evaluate will lead to better quality instruction and learning.
The following table documents a summary of Howe and Ménard’s research and gives us the
distribution of teachers’ answers relative to their beliefs on the evaluation of learning.
25
26
Translated from Robert Howe and Louise Ménard, “Croyances et pratiques en évaluation des apprentissages”,
Pédagogie collégiale, vol. 7, no 3, March 1994, p. 21-27.x
For a presentation of research results, please refer to: Robert Howe and Louise Ménard, Croyances et pratiques en
évaluation des apprentissages, recherche PAREA, Laval, Collège Montmorency, 1993, 404 p.
Page 42 of 383
Summary distribution of answers given by teachers regarding their beliefs on the
Table 1: Distribution of responses to statements on beliefs relative to:
Category 1: The use of evaluations in the classroom (shortened statements)
AC
A
D
DC
NC
To guide decisions
1.
The evaluation is used to identify student
strengths and weaknesses.
43 %
52 %
4%
0%
1%
2.
Following the evaluation, the teachers
should be been willing to readjust course
contents.
32 %
44 %
15 %
4%
4%
3.
If I could, I would not evaluate.
7%
7%
38 %
45 %
3%
4.
The evaluation is mainly used to satisfy
administrative requirements.
2%
7%
53 %
35 %
3%
To assist learning
5.
The evaluation is used to validate what the
students learned.
34 %
61 %
3%
1%
0%
6.
The evaluation can help students learn.
35 %
60 %
3%
0%
2%
7.
It is not necessary
evaluations.
formative
1%
3%
40 %
51 %
5%
8.
Formative evaluations are mini evaluations
that are used to prepare for the summative
evaluation.
7%
43 %
31 %
13 %
6%
to
use
To manage the classroom
9.
The best way to make students work is to
assign grades to their work.
17 %
61 %
17 %
3%
2%
10.
Evaluations encourage students to put more
effort into their studies.
33 %
61 %
5%
0%
1%
11.
Students work more consistently
evaluations are frequent.
29 %
58 %
8%
1%
4%
when
Note ― Percentages are based on frequency tables after weighting. N min. = 616; N max. = 628.
Page 43 de 383
Category 2: Objects of evaluation
AC
A
D
DC
NC
Course subject matter
1.
Examination questions should not go beyond
the subject matter taught.
19 %
39 %
33 %
5%
5%
2.
It is not practical to have the evaluation cover
all the subject matter taught.
7%
50 %
28 %
10 %
4%
3.
The examination should cover everything that is
taught in the classroom.
8%
27 %
50 %
12 %
3%
Skills
4.
It is more important to evaluate understanding
than knowledge.
19 %
49 %
20 %
4%
7%
5.
It is impossible to evaluate anything other than
knowledge.
2%
8%
55 %
32 %
4%
6.
It is practically impossible to evaluate attitudes.
5%
19 %
46 %
18 %
13 %
7.
We should be evaluating higher cognitive skills.
9%
41 %
40 %
4%
7%
Page 44 de 383
Category 3: Evaluation qualities
AC
A
D
DC
NC
Validation of the components
1.
It is useful to analyze examination questions.
35 %
56 %
4%
1%
3%
2.
A second specialist should check examination
questions.
14 %
58 %
15 %
2%
11 %
3.
Instructions for written work are clearer if a
second specialist verifies them.
17%
64 %
11 %
1%
7%
Evaluation criteria
4.
Everyone should be evaluated using the same
criteria.
47 %
45 %
5%
1%
2%
5.
It is necessary to establish the criteria before
beginning the grading.
47 %
48 %
4%
-
1%
Representation
6.
It is impossible for evaluation results to
accurately reflect student learning.
4%
25 %
50 %
16 %
5%
7.
Several evaluations are required to obtain reliable
results.
32 %
62 %
5%
-
1%
8.
My evaluation methods are reliable.
13 %
79 %
4%
-
4%
9.
The grades should reflect the objectives that have
been mastered.
22 %
62 %
8%
1%
7%
11 %
30 %
20 %
2%
38 %
Consistency
10.
Many teachers lack consistency in evaluations.
Page 45 de 383
Category 4: Evaluation tools
AC
A
D
DC
NC
1.
Questions requiring development can only measure
higher learning.
12 %
32 %
41 %
7%
8%
2.
Multiple-choice questions can measure higher
learning.
3%
38 %
32 %
15 %
11 %
3.
Multiple-choice
knowledge.
measure
6%
35 %
42 %
8%
9%
4.
Multiple-choice questions too often lead to random
answers.
8%
35 %
33 %
2%
21 %
5.
Examinations should allow open textbooks.
4%
14 %
55 %
12 %
15 %
6.
Assessment examinations should be obligatory in
all disciplines.
13 %
38 %
29 %
5%
15 %
7.
Written work and projects are the best evaluations.
6%
31 %
44 %
5%
13 %
questions
mainly
Evaluations should generally be self-evaluations that are:
8.
Formative
4%
24 %
48 %
13 %
10 %
9.
Summative
0%
5%
53 %
35 %
6%
Page 46 de 383
Category 5: Interpersonal dimension of the evaluation
AC
A
D
DC
NC
16 %
36 %
39 %
4%
5%
9%
61 %
23 %
1%
5%
1.
The hardest working students deserve the highest
grades.
2.
Poor results lead to de-motivation.
3.
A grade should not be increased to encourage the
student to work harder.
15 %
55 %
21 %
3%
6%
4.
In grading work, we are influenced by the
identity of the respondent.
4%
40 %
35 %
9%
12 %
5.
Teaching concepts influence the evaluation.
26 %
57 %
8%
1%
7%
Table 6: Distribution of the responses to the statements of beliefs relative to:
Category 6: Feedback and grading
AC
A
D
DC
NC
Feedback
1.
Professors should provide written comments on
students’ work.
33 %
57 %
4%
1%
5%
2.
The majority of students read the comments
written by their professors.
25 %
60 %
6%
1%
9%
Grading
3.
The class average is a reflection of the quality of
teaching.
1%
17 %
62 %
14 %
6%
4.
It is necessary to avoid evaluations that are
subjective.
18 %
44 %
25 %
4%
8%
5.
Professors sometimes assign passing grades that
are not deserved.
4%
28 %
23 %
4%
41 %
6.
Grades should follow the normal curve.
2%
38 %
39 %
12 %
10 %
7.
Formative evaluations should not be taken into
account on the report card.
16 %
35 %
32 %
7%
10 %
8.
Grading hinders teaching.
2%
9%
57 %
24 %
8%
9.
The grade is the student’s salary.
9%
46 %
26 %
9%
10 %
Page 47 de 383
Page 48 de 383
Chapter 2
From teaching to learning: the impact on
evaluations
Important changes are taking place and impacting the pedagogical foundations of education and
particularly the evaluation of learning.
“The concept of learning that gave rise to various reforms in Québec points to a “paradigm
rupture” (Tardif, 1998) through the transition from a teaching paradigm to a learning paradigm.
What does this mean? It does not mean that teaching now becomes a secondary function and that
the focus is now exclusively on learning; rather, it is a different way of viewing the relationship
between learning, teaching and evaluation. These are no longer seen as independent entities but as
a dynamic interrelationship within the educational framework of activities used by the teacher.”27
“We notice major changes in perspectives in current teaching literature relative to the evaluation
of learning. This new perspective finds echo here, in particular when dealing with the authentic
evaluation and competency assessment.”
The following authors emphasize the important changes linked to the new paradigm.
Robert Howe affirms:
“The evaluation per se, is a topic seen more and more frequently in writings on education. We
question evaluation practices used in our classrooms and see an opportunity to evaluate the
various aspects of our school system. For many of us, this type of thinking arouses some concern:
we know that change is in the air and that this change is impossible to circumvent. We suspect it
involves the way in which we evaluate learning. We also know that we will be personally
challenged sooner or later, because our beliefs are at the core of the issue. Many fear these
changes, others await them eagerly. This difference in attitude relative to current trends in
evaluation is a natural occurrence in major transitional states. We are living a great change of
paradigm in evaluation and change brings a certain amount of confusion in its wake, as it always
does.”28
Marie-Françoise Legendre adds:
“Evaluations bring out many fears: fear of not being objective, of losing control, of lowering the
standards. No one remains untouched! For some, evaluation promises the achievement of
learning objectives and provides a solid foundation for determining student success or failure,
using pre-established criteria. For others, it is a support function that assists learning to ensure
educational success for the greatest number of students. Some want to avoid the danger of
lowering performance levels. Others find it necessary to reconsider the role of evaluations in the
global context of learning activities and instruction that is based on competency development.
[…]
The transition from programs based on objectives to programs centered on competency
development points to a paradigm shift that has serious repercussions on the way we view
evaluations, their role in learning, the culture in which they originate and new requirements
relative to accountability and methods used. We will initially specify exactly what this
“paradigm shift” is and its implications on the evaluation of learning. We will then tackle the
27
28
Translated from Robert Howe, “Un nouveau paradigme en évaluation des apprentissages”, Pédagogie collégiale,
vol. 6, no 3, March 1993.
Page 49 de 383
central question of evaluation in a competency-based program. Lastly, we will see that the
function of evaluation must fall under a shared accountability that grants the central role to
professional judgment but also makes room for other involved participants.”29
In referring to our neighbours to the south, Jacques Laliberté stated in 1995:
“In the United States, inherent limitations in the widespread use of standardized tests led
specialists and educators to seek other ways of evaluating student learning. Other factors include
the ever-increasing influence of cognitivist and constructivist theories of learning and the
influence resulting from a competency-based education or on a larger scale, outcome-based
education. All the above have profoundly affected the concept and implementation of the
evaluation of learning for our American neighbours.”30
At the end of her research for Performa, Cécile D’Amour (1996) concludes:
“The new perspective is so different from the one which currently prevails that it is referred to as
a new paradigm, a new frame of reference i.e., a set of concepts, hypotheses, principles and
behaviours adopted by a community of researchers or interveners that guide research and activity
in the field.
At a time when many at the collegial level are raising questions on the evaluation of learning, this
new paradigm can undoubtedly help move things along. It can be a frame of reference for
teachers who wish to reflect on their evaluation practices and on the beliefs and values that
underscore them. It can be a promising path for teachers who seek to get out of the rut of
managing grades and who want to make evaluations an educational activity. It can also be a
source of inspiration for new evaluation of learning methods currently being implemented in
colleges, so they do not become mere administrative tools but rather ways to improve the quality
of teaching and learning.”31
To fully grasp the nature of these changes, this chapter documents the transition from a teaching
paradigm to a learning paradigm as well as the characteristics of an evaluation of learning based
on the new paradigm.
29
30
31
Translated from Marie-France Legendre, “Favoriser l’émergence de changements en matière d’évaluation des
apprentissages”, Vie pédagogique, no 120, 2001.
Translated from Jacques Laliberté, “D’autres façons de concevoir et de faire l’évaluation des apprentissages”,
Pédagogie collégiale, March 1995.
Translated from Cécile D’Amour et Groupe de travail à Performa, “Une évaluation des apprentissages marquée
par le nouveau paradigme”, L’évaluation des apprentissages au collégial : du cours au programme, Fascicule II.
Cadre de référence. Première partie : Les questions préalables, première édition, [s. l.], April 1996, p. 15-18.
Page 50 de 383
Chapter synopsis:
Activity 2:
Characteristics of the evaluation of learning based on
the new paradigm
Learning tools:
Learning tool 2.A:
Learning tool 2.B:
Summary of the characteristics of the two paradigms
Learning tool 2.C:
Statements to be discussed
Learning tool 2.D:
Summary of the characteristics of learning evaluations
Documents:
Document 2.A:
Document 2.B:
“To support the emergence of change in the evaluation
of learning”
Document 2.C:
“To bring changes to the evaluation of learning”
Complementary document:
Complementary document 2: “Alternate ways of designing and evaluating learning”
Page 51 de 383
Activity 2
Characteristics of the evaluation of learning
Heading
Characteristics of the evaluation of learning based on the new paradigm
Objectives
To identify the characteristics of the teaching paradigm and the learning
paradigm.
To recognize the characteristics of the evaluation of learning based on the new
paradigm.
To evaluate the impact on evaluation practices.
Description
This activity describes the paradigm shift and its implication in the evaluation
of learning.
The task involves examining the new perspective, by identifying its
dimensions and factors of change, by reading descriptions in the literature and
by identifying the characteristics of a learning evaluation that uses this
perspective as its starting point.
The new perspective has a major impact on the way we conceive and
implement learning evaluations. It also represents an opportunity to measure
the impact on evaluation practices.
Unfolding
A. Each individual reviews:
— the first two pages of learning tool 2.A: “From a teaching paradigm to
a learning paradigm”;
— the summary tables of learning tool 2.B.
B. Group discussions to validate participants’ understanding, using learning
tool 2.C.
C. Beginning with the summary of characteristics for an evaluation of
learning based on the new paradigm:
— to validate understanding, compare characteristics using learning tool
2.D: “Summary of the characteristics of the evaluation of learning
based on the new paradigm”;
— to identify what is new and what is similar to current practices.
D. To evaluate the impact on personal evaluation practices (reference
document: Document 2.C).
E. Perform a final assessment so each individual can draw a portrait of his
own evaluation practices while taking into account the new perspective
resulting from the change in paradigm.
Page 52 de 383
Moderator’s role
To create a climate favourable to peer interaction.
To present frequent summaries so participants can validate their
understanding.
To perform required reading.
To openly express personal concepts and perceptions.
To do a personal assessment.
Pedagogical
material
Support
documentation
—
Learning tool 2.A: From a teaching paradigm to a learning paradigm
—
Learning tool 2.B: Summary of the characteristics of the two paradigms
—
Learning tool 2.C: Statements to be discussed
—
Learning tool 2.D: Summary of the characteristics of the evaluation of
learning based on the new paradigm
As an extension to the activity, reading the following will clarify the changes
relative to the new paradigm. A description can be found in the previous
pages.
—
Document 2.A:
—
Document 2.B:
To support the emergence of change in the evaluation
of learning
—
Document 2.C:
To bring changes to the evaluation of learning
Complementary
document
“Alternate ways of designing and evaluating learning”
Approximate
duration
This activity can be divided into two parts:
Part A and B, approximately 2 hours.
Part C, D and E, approximately 3 hours.
Comments
The discussions will be more advantageous if participants are asked to read the
material beforehand.
Page 53 de 383
Learning tool 2.A
From a teaching paradigm to a …
Learning paradigm
In a teaching paradigm, learning is subordinate to
teaching. In other words, students learn because
they are taught and it is primarily the quality of the
instruction they receive which determines the
quality of their learning. From this point of view,
the emphasis is on the teaching process more than
on the learning process, and on the products or
observable demonstrations of learning more than on
the thought process or the reasoning process that
underscore them. This concept, inherited from
learning behaviourists and mastery learning in
particular, places the emphasis on the “a priori”
determination of objectives that correspond to the
totality of skills― be they attitudes, aptitudes or
knowledge ― that we plan on teaching students and
on the development of evaluation processes to
determine with precision if the subject taught was
actually learned.
In a learning paradigm, teaching does not
determine learning. Its function is primarily to
guide and support it. Therefore, it is not because
someone teaches that the student learns since
learning takes place independent of specific
instruction. We can teach very well and still not
achieve the desired learning objectives (Saint-Onge,
1992a). It is therefore impossible to establish a
direct correspondence between what is taught and
what is learned, since learning does not begin and
end with teaching. It is equally impossible to
evaluate with exact precision what has been learned
as the student often calls upon knowledge other
than what has been specifically taught (Legendre,
1998).
In short, we tend to establish a direct
correspondence between what is evaluated and what
is learned, between what is learned and what is
taught. Teaching, learning and evaluation then
correspond clearly to three distinct times within a
linear sequence, and the student is unable to learn
unless he has been taught and evaluations focus
only on what was learned and consequently, taught!
In short, it is not because teaching takes place that
students learn but rather because learning is a
complex process that is cognitive, social and
emotional by nature, requiring specific teaching
practices adapted to the nature of the processes
mobilized. Such a paradigm regards evaluation as
an integral part of the learning process.
Page 54 de 383
It is from this point of view that programs based on
objectives are created, characterized by the
establishment of numerous fragmented objectives
corresponding to the knowledge and skills that must
be taught and learned then evaluated. One of the
negative side effects of these programs is that they
anchor learning and teaching to the evaluation: we
tend to teach what is easy to evaluate, and students
tend to be motivated to learn relative to what will be
evaluated! The result is evaluations that are
undoubtedly appropriate for linear and atomized
learning, but that prove inadequate when it comes
to evaluating global learning occurring through the
progressive reorganization of prior knowledge – as
is the case with competencies – rather than by the
simple accumulation of knowledge.
Its primary function is not to sanction success or
failure, but to support student learning and guide or
reorient the teacher in his pedagogical
interventions. It presupposes a differentiated
instruction, i.e. the ability to implement varied
teaching and learning methods that take into
account student diversity and allow them to travel
on different paths towards academic success (CSE,
1993). This is the perspective of a competencybased program.
This program stresses the importance of not
approaching the knowledge to be acquired in a
compartmentalized and decontextualized way, but
through interaction and in relation to contexts that
validate their use (Legendre, 2000). It also calls
upon the professionalism of the teacher who must
select teaching strategies that are adapted to the
targeted learning but also to the students and the
specific context. Teaching, learning and evaluation
are not considered sequential, like distinct moments
in a process, but rather as dynamic interactions
within the process. There is no need therefore to
plan for evaluations that are separate from learning
situations. Evaluations become an integral part of a
teaching process that includes methods of
regulation or self-regulation of learning and
teaching activities.
Translated from Marie-Françoise Legendre, “Favoriser l’émergence de changements en matière d’évaluation des apprentissages”,
Vie pédagogique, no 120, September-October 2001, p. 15-19.
Page 55 de 383
Learning tool 2.B
Summary tables
Table 1: Summary of characteristics of the teaching
and learning paradigms32
Indicators
Learning Concept
Learning paradigm
Teaching paradigm
— Transformation of information
and knowledge into viable and
transferable knowledge
— Memorization
— Integration of knowledge into
cognitive diagrams
— Accumulation of knowledge
— Interconnection of diverse
knowledge
— Creation of relationships
Classroom activities
Evaluation methods
— Begin with the student
— Begin with the teacher
— Based on projects, research and
problem situations
— High frequency of practical
activities
— Interactive relationships
— Educational and vertical
relationships
— Relative to competencies
developed
— Relative to knowledge
— Tests requiring short answers
— Portfolios
Proof of success
— Quality of understanding
— Amount of information retained
— Quality of the competencies
developed
— Sometimes, the quantity of
acquired knowledge
— Quality of the knowledge
constructed
— Transferability of learning
Teacher’s Role
— Centered on providing support
and the gradual removal of
support
— An expert
— A conveyer of information
— Sometimes a learner
Student’s Role
— A builder
— A passive recipient
— A collaborator
— A learner who is in listening
mode
— Sometimes an expert
32
Translated from Jacques Tardif, presentation to the ministère de l’Éducation du Québec, October 12, 1999.
Page 56 de 383
The following table highlights differences between what the author calls “constructivism” (learning
paradigm) and traditional trends (teaching paradigm) that are called “instructivism” because of the
prevalence given to instruction (teaching) over learning.
Table 2: Principles of teaching/learning practices in constructivism and
instructivism33
Constructivism
(learning paradigm) 34
Instructivism
(teaching paradigm) 35
1. Student’s role
Active builder of knowledge
Collaborator, sometimes an
expert
Person who listens
Always a learner
2. Learning concept
Transformation of information
into knowledge and meaning
Accumulation of information
3. Cognitive foundations
Interpretation based on prior
knowledge and beliefs
Accumulation based on previously
acquired information
4. Type of activities
Centered on the learner, vary
according to learning styles
Interactive relationship
Centered on the teacher
Didactic relationship
Same practical exercises for all
learners
5. Type of environment
Supportive
Hierarchical
6. Type of curriculum
Rich in resources, centered on
activities
Provides access to information
requested
Pre-established and fixed, provides
only the resources required
7. Proof of success
Quality of understanding and
construction of knowledge
Quantity of memorized
information
8. Flow of activities
Self-directed
Linear and directed by the teacher
9. Evaluation
Relative to developed
competencies, portfolios
Relative to information
Tests with short questions
Standardized tests
Individual dimension
Social dimensions
33
34
35
Translated from La transition des instructivismes aux constructivismes par les technologies de la communication au service
de l’enseignement/apprentissage à distance, Télé-université, 2002. [http://www.refad.ca/constructivisme.html].
Author’s addition to the heading.
Id.
Page 57 de 383
1. Concept of knowledge
A dynamic process that evolves
over time and within a given
culture
A static truth that can be acquired
once and for all, independently of
the learner
2. Teacher’s role
Collaborator, facilitator,
sometimes a learner
Expert, transmitter of knowledge
3. Teaching focus
Creating relationships
Memorization
Answers to complex questions
Focus on information
Centered on cooperative work
Individual readings and exercises
4. Principal actions
Project development and problem
solving
5. Social model
The community, sense of
belonging
People who act on their
environment and are not only
dependent on it
Classroom
Learners as recipients of
transmitted knowledge
Development of autonomy,
metacognition and critical
thinking
6. The role of play
Play and experimentation as valid Play = waste of time
forms of learning
Limited experimentation
Tools and technologies
Varied: computers, DVDs,
technologies that impact the
learner in his daily existence,
books, magazines, periodicals,
films, etc.
Paper, pencil, texts, some films,
videos, etc.
In summary, this table shows that constructivists relate to a post-modern educational paradigm where the
learner constructs his own interpretation of events and information. Knowledge is not set in stone.
Authentic tasks and projects are looked upon as stimulating. Constant collaboration is an integral part of
educational practices.
Page 58 de 383
Learning tool 2.C
My beliefs
Learning is subordinate to teaching. In other words, Personal notes:
it is because we teach that the students learn and it
……………………………………………………
is primarily the quality of the teaching that
……………………………………………………
determines the quality of the learning.
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
It is not possible to establish a correspondence Personal notes:
between what is taught and what is learned.
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
The student can only learn if he is subjected to Personal notes:
some form of teaching and the evaluation must only
……………………………………………………
deal with what has been learned.
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
We tend to teach what is easy to evaluate and the Personal notes:
students tend to be motivated to learn only what
……………………………………………………
will be evaluated.
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
The evaluation is an integral part of the learning
process. Its principal function is not to sanction
success or failure, but to support the student’s
learning process, to direct or reorient educational
interventions.
Personal notes:
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
While support can be given to competency Personal notes:
development, strictly speaking, we cannot teach a
……………………………………………………
competency.
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
Page 59 de 383
My beliefs
Formative evaluation involves a rigid control of the Personal notes:
learning progress for each student relative to the
……………………………………………………
imposed criteria for success.
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
To evaluate, regardless of the method used, is to
make a judgment and the fact of assigning a grade
on the basis of a normative or criteria-based
evaluation in no way eliminates the involvement of
judgment.
Personal notes:
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
If the evaluation given to a student consists of Personal notes:
completing a single exercise sheet, the teacher will
……………………………………………………
not have access to pertinent data on which to judge
……………………………………………………
the level of competency development.
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
The transition from an evaluation centered on
validation and selection to an evaluation, whose
essential function is to support learning and
teaching, marks an important shift in the evaluation
culture.
Personal notes:
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
Page 60 de 383
Learning tool 2.D
Summary of characteristics of the evaluation of
learning based on the new paradigm
The evaluation of learning at collegial level is marked by the new paradigm; it is carried out in a
professional manner and within a program perspective.
The evaluation of learning is
characterized by36:
Which, on a methodological plane, signifies:
1.
An evaluation adapted to a
competency-based approach,
resulting in complex,
multidimensional, integrated and
transferable learning.
An evaluation:
— that is global, multidimensional;
— contextualized;
— that provides students with real opportunities to
demonstrate their competencies;
— while ensuring standardization in passing requirements and
evaluation criteria.
2.
An evaluation that truly
serves learning, an evaluation
that is integrated into teaching
and learning processes: that
guides and helps students to
assume responsibility for their
learning and, finally provides a
reliable validation of learning
achieved.
An evaluation:
— that is dynamic rather than static;
o with snapshots taken at specific times to create a
picture of learning in motion;
o concerned with results but also with the process;
— carried out within a didactic perspective and not one that is
exclusively docimological;
— used not only to establish reports or make assessments but
also for diagnostic purposes;
— that offers the possibility of various adjustments in the
pursuit of learning;
— that takes into account not only cognitive but also affective
aspects;
— that calls on a variety of evaluators (teacher responsible for
guiding the learning, other teachers, students, evaluators
from outside the educational environment);
— that withholds making a final judgment on the learning
achieved until the end of the total learning period
3.
An evaluation that is criteria
based, that judges the
achievement of learning
objectives rather than seeking to
classify students in relation to
each other (normative
evaluation).
An evaluation:
— concerned with validity rather than discrimination;
— that makes use of qualitative approaches using descriptive
methods.
36
Translated from Cécile D’Amour and Groupe de travail at Performa, L’évaluation des apprentissages au collégial : du
cours au programme, Fascicule II. Cadre de référence. Première partie : Les questions préalables, première édition, [s. l.],
April 1996, p. 15-18.
Page 61 de 383
4.
A forward-thinking,
methodology, re-establishing the
role of professional judgment
and recognizing student
accountability, a thorough and
adapted methodology.
—
—
—
—
—
—
that is adapted:
to the first three characteristics;
to the function of a given evaluation: support for the
learning process or certification of learning achieved;
thorough, which means:
it allows judgment to play its role;
its methods and learning tools (scales, calculations, etc.)
are properly used, in accordance with their conditions of
use.
This second part completes the table of characteristics and stresses the value of professional
judgment37.
A culture of shared responsibility From the perspective of evaluations integrated into learning we
should accentuate the support of learning functions. This would
(Legendre, 2001, p. 18 et 19)
lead to a clear definition of the roles of interveners in student
education, beginning with the student himself. Moreover, we
should not underestimate the importance of support given by the
institution in stimulating dialogue within the program team.
Thus the role assigned to professional judgment, far from
isolating the teacher in his decisions, is closely linked to
individual and collective methods and is included in the culture
of shared responsibility. In other words, it is not solely the
teacher’s responsibility to provide means that ensure the highest
educational success for the greatest number of students, but that
of the organization as a whole.
The preponderance of
professional judgment
37
An evaluation, regardless of the form used, automatically
implies a judgment and assigning a grade on the basis of a
normative or criteria-based evaluation in no way eliminates the
need for a judgment.
The role of professional judgment does not introduce an
arbitrary element into an apparently neutral evaluation process.
It simply recognizes the role of judgment in any professional
activity, whatever it may be. The mark of a professional is the
capacity to make a judgment in his field of expertise. It therefore
seems necessary to bring a certain clarification to the concept of
professional judgment.
Translated from Marie-France Legendre, “Favoriser l’émergence de changements en matière d’évaluation des
apprentissages”, Vie pédagogique, no 120, 2001, p. 18 and 19.
Page 62 de 383
The characteristics of professional judgment 38
Every professional is constantly faced with situations that he
A professional judgment is a
judgment that is autonomous and must evaluate in order to make decisions, direct his
interventions and revise them as need be. The professional is not
based on responsibility.
content to merely do what is asked of him. He has the necessary
autonomy to determine what seems appropriate, based on the
data available to him and his personal knowledge and
experience. He is able to assume responsibility for his decisions
and choices since the latter are supported by recognized
expertise.
A person is regarded as a professional when he possesses
knowledge and experience that allows him to evaluate in a
suitable way the various situations he experiences in his
practice. He should be able to make sound decisions and to
assume responsibility for them; to succeed in his actions and
make any adjustments along the way, taking new data into
account. Autonomy and responsibility do not mean that the
professional acts alone. That is not the case. In fact, a mark of
professional autonomy and responsibility is to seek advice from
a more experienced colleague or to find the expertise which
supplements our own, when dealing with a situation that taxes
the limits of our competency. In this respect, the teaching
profession is no different from any other. The teacher is not a
simple doer. In the context of his daily practice, he never stops
evaluating situations in relation to clues he finds significant, he
continues to make choices and decisions (Perrenoud, 1996). To
upgrade the teacher’s professional judgment does not mean
introducing something new into teaching practices but rather
recognizing that this judgment exists and assigning its rightful
role in an evaluation that is an integral part of daily practice. It is
accepting to maintain evaluation as an integral part of a
teacher’s field of activity.
38
Page 63 de 383
A professional judgment is made The teacher has various tools (didactic tools, evaluation and
self-evaluation instruments, etc.) that can be used within his
with the help of tools.
professional activities. He must sometimes adapt the tool to the
particular situation at hand. When he evaluates a situation,
makes a decision and accomplishes an action, every
professional has a wealth of resources available that he can use,
when it is relevant, useful or necessary to do so.
However, his competency does not rely on the tools he has at
his disposal, but rather on his ability to use them. A tool is not
good or bad in itself, but rather in relation to its relevancy to a
context or established goal. With regard to the evaluation of
learning, specific tools can be suitable for making a clear
diagnosis on certain components of the competency, yet prove
completely inadequate when it comes to evaluating a
competency in its totality. Accordingly, existing evaluation
methods are not put aside but must support professional
judgment. This makes it possible to delimit their use and, if
necessary, to design other tools that are better adapted to the
new requirements identified in the follow-up and assessment of
competencies.
A professional judgment is based To observe does not mean to collect information passively, it
on a competency to observe while means to record observations, actively organize and interpret
them based on a frame of reference. To assess the development
the situation unfolds.
of competencies on the basis of observation, two conditions are
necessary: access to pertinent data and the ability to give that
data meaning. To access pertinent data, it is important to call
on a sufficient number of diversified learning situations so the
student may apply his competencies and pursue their
development. To interpret data requires a sufficiently precise
representation of the competency whose development is being
supported.
Every task has limitations relative to the data it can provide and
every task does not necessarily allow us to evaluate a
competency. Therefore, a variety of tasks relative to what we
want to observe is needed so that we may avoid making a global
judgment based on limited data.
It is necessary however to avoid establishing a term-to-term
correspondence between the task and the object of evaluation.
One task can call several competencies into play, and the same
competency can be required in several distinct tasks.
Admittedly, when the teacher gives the students relatively
complex tasks that require more than one competency, it is not
possible to observe everything at the same time. Observation is
selective by definition and it is completely valid to favour
specific data based on the goals or the information sought. But
we must not fail to recognize competencies other than the ones
targeted by the observation when they appear. “What counts in
observation, specifies Perrenoud, is more the theoretical
framework that guides and governs the interpretation of what is
being observed than the instrumentation used.”
Page 64 de 383
In this respect, the teacher’s observations are closely linked to
the underlying frame of reference, both in the selection of
pertinent data and their interpretation, i.e. to interconnect them
to determine the meaning. The competency that will be observed
presupposes not only the ability to design learning situations
likely to provide interesting material for what we wish to
observe, but also the ability to interpret the data collected based
on our experience and knowledge. An adequate representation
of competencies to be developed and learning situations likely to
support their development proves to be essential.
Professional judgment
evolutionary judgment.
is
an Professional judgment is an evolutionary judgment as it relies
on a portrait taken at a specific time in the process, a portrait
that can be modified through the addition of new information.
On the one hand, the competency is evolving, as is its evaluation
since it relies on information observed at a specific moment and
within a specific context and situation. On the other hand,
observations by the teacher are incomplete and can be enriched
by the contribution of new data. Indeed, according to the
learning situations proposed to students and the disciplinary
contexts in which they take place, teachers do not necessarily
have access to the same data. It is thus important, particularly
with regard to transversal competencies, to share observations
that come from varied sources.
It is indeed through their actualization in varied disciplinary
contexts that teachers will be able to make an assessment of the
student’s transversal competencies. The teacher’s judgment can
thus be enriched by observations made by other participants,
such as other teachers or interveners and even the students
themselves.
Professional judgment rests on the close
cooperation of the various interveners. New data can cause the
teacher to modify or revise a portion of the judgment. It can
also bring about an evolution in the frame of reference that
supports the observations.
The professional judgment must
be an ethical judgment in
conformity with a set of values.
The teacher must not be prejudiced in his judgement of the
student. His interventions are intended to support learning and
development and must be founded on a “concept of
educability”, i.e. confidence in the potential of the child
(Meirieu, 1991). As an educator, every teacher is endowed with
a certain “power” and has an influence over his students. He
must use this power and influence in an ethical manner; he must
be particularly sensitive to the impact his evaluations have on
the development of the student’s academic, personal and social
identity. Experience acquired in educational environments often
carries lasting influences on student self-image both as a learner
and as a human being. It can have a determining impact on the
student’s future social and professional integration. With respect
to ethics, the teacher must acknowledge the limitations of his
professional judgment, the need for a solid foundation and the
possibility that his judgment may be called into question.
Page 65 de 383
Conclusion
From the perspective of competency-based development, the
evaluation should not be considered a separate entity from the
learning process, whose sole function is to make a judgment on
the learning achieved. Any situation can be viewed from the
dual perspective of the learning it hopes to achieve and the
observations it elicits in support of the evaluation. It is not
necessary therefore to design evaluations that are distinct from
learning situations.
In a program that places specific teacher interventions in the
broader context of their contribution to general training, teachers
are collectively rather than individually responsible for
providing support to learning. The same applies to the
evaluation that is part of the culture of shared responsibility.
Lastly, in this context of collective responsibility, it is important
to clearly recognize the roles and responsibilities of each
individual and to examine them in light of their
complementarity. It is from this perspective that professional
judgment takes its true meaning and acknowledges the teacher’s
expertise.
The transition from an evaluation centered on approval and
selection to an evaluation whose essential function is to support
learning and teaching, marks an important change in our
evaluation culture. It goes without saying that cultural changes
do not occur overnight. We must take the time and apply the
means necessary to evolve, to gradually modify current practices
and adapt them to new requirements and constraints. We must
also have a clear vision of the direction in which we are headed.
Cultural changes do not mean that we must put aside all current
practices and sweep them away. It is rather a realignment to
better identify the role and limitations of current evaluation
practices and to conceive of new practices that supplement,
enrich and bring new meaning in a renewed context.
Page 66 de 383
Page 67 de 383
Document 2.A
A new paradigm in the evaluation of learning39
The evaluation of learning is not considered foreign to the
pedagogical process. It is an integral part of teaching and
learning; it facilitates the decision-making process as regards
the behaviour of the professor and the process undertaken by
the student.
The concept of evaluations is more and more evident in writings on education. We are questioning
evaluation practices used in our classrooms and we see an opportunity to evaluate the various aspects of
our school system. For many of us, this type of thinking causes some concern: we know that change is in
the air and that this change is inevitable. We suspect that it involves the way in which we evaluate
learning. We also know that we will be personally challenged, sooner or later, because it is at the very
core of our beliefs. Many fear these changes, others await them eagerly. This difference in attitudes
relative to current trends in evaluation occurs naturally in all major transitional states. We are living a
great change in paradigm as regards evaluation and change brings, as it always does, a certain amount of
confusion. […]
The consequences
This new way of viewing evaluations forces us to re-examine the concept we have of the teacher-student
relationship; it also causes us to question, among other things, the interpretation of grades that the
professor assigns to his students as well as the impact of evaluations on teaching and learning.
The interpretation of grades
In an excellent study on grading practices, Suzan Brookhart explains that a grade assigned by a teacher
will be analyzed on one hand, and used on the other. Therefore, because many professors worry about the
use that will be made of the grade (failure of a student who was showing promise, abandonment of a
training profile, difficulty in finding employment or gaining entrance to university), many teachers will
add circumstantial variables to indicate the student has potential, has put forth valid efforts or shows
promise. These variables (effort, participation, etc.) directly raise the grade that would be lower if based
solely on acquired competencies.
This gives rise to a new problem. If we worry about the social impact of the evaluation to the point where
we introduce diverse variables for the final grading, we reach a point where we are unable to interpret the
grade assigned. According to Brookhart, several teachers are ambivalent when they think about the
interpretability of the grade, on the one hand, and the social use of the grade on the other. According to
her, several authors stress that this phenomenon calls into question the validity of evaluations and
maintain that the interpretation of grades and the social impact of their use must be included in the criteria
being analyzed with regard to the validity of an evaluation.
In the United States, professors are increasingly conscious of their social responsibility in this respect.
Many are the target of lawsuits resulting from unjustified failures and successes among students.
39
Translated from Robert Howe and Louise Ménard, “Conseillers pédagogiques Collège Montmorency”, Pédagogie
collégiale, March 1993, vol. 6 n° 3.
In this excerpt, references listed in the article were removed to avoid confusion with notes found at the bottom of the
document page.
Page 68 de 383
Teaching and learning
The choice of evaluation strategy, tools and practices impacts both students and professors, particularly in
their selection of content and pedagogical approach. What is not evaluated tends to disappear from the
curriculum. If this assertion is true, we can then say that exams and strategies used to evaluate have a
determining influence on teaching and learning. According to Gong, evaluation has such a leverage effect
that simply changing evaluation practices can modify teaching practices.
Guy Romano did some research on student study practices at collegial level. He notes that students
develop study strategies that are more or less complex and have more or less depth depending on the
exams they will have to pass. The choice of evaluation practice by the teacher (instrumentation,
frequency, rating, feedback, strategies, and taxonomy levels) will therefore be the deciding factor, at least
to some degree, for the study methods used by the students.
Lundeberg makes the same observations. If the student believes that the professor will evaluate his
learning through the use of objective questions and that these questions usually measure memorized
knowledge, he will tend to study superficially. Similarly, if the student believes that the professor will
use open questions and that these questions usually measure understanding or application skills, his study
will be more in-depth and analytical.
Beginning with the first evaluation, students quickly pick up on what the professor considers important in
the subject matter and tend to study relative to this perception. They tend to adjust their study strategies
relative to their professor’s evaluation strategy and this causal connection is so strong, according to
Crooks that the best way of modifying student learning behaviour is to modify evaluation practices.
Professors understand this and many try to influence the choice of study method by implementing specific
evaluation strategies. In recent research, Green shows that some professors believe that “development
questions” in exams are likely to discourage study when used to measure higher cognitive skills, because
they call upon reflective and analytical capacities. According to these professors, students tend to trust
their ability to improvise, to a certain extent. Based on this, teachers tend to use only objective exams that
measure basic knowledge. On the other hand, some teachers believe that students study more when
questions requiring development are used and that these questions lend themselves better to the
measurement of higher cognitive skills. In spite of the apparent inconsistencies, these observations clearly
show that professors want to adopt evaluation practices relative to the influence they want to have on
study habits.
Conclusion
Although Ralph Tyler identified economic, social and political constraints needed “to shake off” the old
paradigm, we recognize that research in humanities, evolution in the sciences of education and cognitive
psychology help our understanding and the new paradigm to move forward. But the transition from the
old to the new can be confusing. Indeed, in educational matters, we are not always able to accurately
distinguish evaluation concepts by linking them to one paradigm or another. And, to complicate matters,
many are not even aware that there is a paradigm – old or new – at the centre of the debate.
In any event, the old paradigm that dominated for the past forty years has given education an air of
scientific precision while encouraging traditions of scientific thoroughness, as much in research as in
psychometrics. But we are living a definite paradigm shift in evaluation that is leading us to see
evaluations as an integral part of education and a powerful tool for improving learning.
Page 69 de 383
Page 70 de 383
Document 2.B
“To support the emergence of change in the
Introduction
The many debates in the media on the evaluation of learning, held within the context of educational
reform and the development of a new educational program in Québec schools, are very revealing. For one
thing, the topic of evaluation brings out many fears: loss of objectivity, loss of control and lowering of
standards. No one remains untouched! For some, it promises the achievement of learning objectives and
provides an objective basis on which to determine student success or failure, as per pre-established
criteria. For others, it should be a support to learning and assist in the academic success of the greatest
number possible. Some fear that a change of perspective in evaluation will lead to a lower level of
performance. Others consider it necessary to reconsider the role of evaluations in the global context of
learning and teaching activities centered on competency development. To evaluate is to assess without
knowing the impact of our evaluation; and to be evaluated is to be judged and, possibly, significantly
impacted by the judgment (Lemay, 2000). It is thus not surprising that the question of the evaluation of
learning is considered one of the major issues in the current educational reform.
The transition from programs based on objectives to programs centered on competency development
points to a paradigm shift that has serious repercussions on the way we think of evaluations, their role in
learning, the culture in which they originate and new requirements relative to accountability and methods.
We will initially examine exactly what this “change in paradigm” is and its implications on the evaluation
of learning. We will then tackle the central question of evaluation integrated into learning in a
competency-based program. Lastly, we will see that this function of the evaluation must fall under shared
responsibility that grants a central role to professional judgment and makes room for other participants.
1. A change in paradigm
The concept of learning which supports the new educational program in Québec schools points to a
“paradigm rupture” (Tardif, 1998) or, in other words, a break from a teaching paradigm to a learning
paradigm. But what exactly does this mean? It certainly does not mean that teaching is considered a
secondary function and that the focus is now exclusively on learning. It is rather a question of rethinking
the relationship between learning, teaching and evaluation by seeing them not as independent entities, but
rather in their dynamic interrelationship within an educational process. To better understand the nature of
this change and its impact on the design of evaluations; let us briefly see what characterizes these
individual paradigms.
From a teaching paradigm...
In a teaching paradigm, learning is subordinate to teaching. In other words, students learn because they
are taught; and it is primarily the quality of the instruction they receive that determines the quality of their
learning. From this point of view, the emphasis is on the teaching process more than on the learning
process, and on the products or observable demonstrations of learning more than on the concept or
reasoning process that underscores them. This approach, inherited from learning behaviourists and
mastery learning in particular, places the emphasis on the a priori determination of objectives that
correspond to the totality of skills ― be it attitudes, aptitudes or knowledge ― that we will teach and on
the development of evaluation processes to determine with precision if the subject matter taught was
actually learned.
Page 71 de 383
In short, we tend to establish a direct correspondence between what is evaluated and what is learned,
between what is learned and what is taught. Teaching, learning and evaluation then correspond clearly to
three distinct moments within a linear sequence, with the student unable to learn unless he is subjected to
instruction; the evaluation is focused exclusively on what was learned and, consequently, taught! It is
from this point of view that programs based on objectives are created and defined by numerous goals
corresponding to the knowledge and skills that must be taught, learned, and then evaluated. One of the
side effects of these programs is that they anchor learning and teaching to the evaluation: we tend to
teach what is easy to evaluate, and students tend to be motivated to learn in relation to what will be
evaluated! The result is evaluations that are undoubtedly appropriate for linear and atomized learning, but
which prove inadequate when it comes to evaluating global learning occurring through the progressive
reorganization of prior knowledge, as is the case with competencies, rather than by the simple
accumulation of knowledge.
…to a learning paradigm
In a learning paradigm, teaching does not determine learning. Its function is primarily to guide and
support it. Therefore, it is not because someone teaches that the student learns, since learning happens
independently of specific instruction, and we can teach very well and still not achieve the desired learning
objectives (Saint-Onge, 1992a). It is not possible to establish a direct correspondence between what is
taught and what is learned, since learning does not begin and end with teaching. It is equally impossible to
evaluate with exact precision what has been learned, as the student often calls upon knowledge other than
what has been specifically taught (Legendre, 1998).
In short, it is not because teaching takes place that students learn but rather because learning is a complex
process that is cognitive, social and affective by nature, that requires specific teaching practices and that is
adapted to the nature of the process used. Such a paradigm regards evaluation as an integral part of the
learning process. Here, its primary function is not to sanction success or failure, but to support the
student’s learning process and guide or reorient the teacher’s pedagogical interventions. It implies a
differentiated instruction, i.e. the ability to apply varied teaching and learning methods that take into
account student diversity and allow different students to take different routes towards academic success
(CSE, 1993). This is the perspective of a competency-based program. This program stresses the
importance of not approaching ‘knowledge to be acquired’ in a compartmentalized and decontextualized
way, but through interactions and in contexts that validate its use (Legendre, 2000). The program also
calls upon the teacher’s professionalism in selecting teaching strategies that are not only adapted to the
desired learning but also to the students and the specific context. Teaching, learning and evaluation are
not considered sequential, like specific moments in a teaching process but rather as dynamic interactions
within the process. There is no need therefore to plan for evaluations that are separate from learning
situations. Evaluations become an integral part of a teaching process that includes methods of regulation
or self-regulation of learning and teaching activities.
2. Evaluation integrated into learning
The ever-increasing distance between learning and evaluation is linked to the decontextualization of
knowledge, disciplinary compartmentalization, the division of knowledge and the atomization of
competencies. The growing gap is the result of the belief that knowledge and skills can be taught in small
relatively stable units that are separate from each other and, once acquired, will combine and
subsequently transfer from one context to another (for example: learning a grammatical rule, a list of
vocabulary words, a definition, a mathematical algorithm, etc.) The learning situation consists of
memorized knowledge and the use of previously taught skills, while the evaluation takes the form of a
“test” relating to a specific subject, at a specific time and in a specific context, that is often artificial and
restrictive (Tardif, 1998). In a competency-based approach, we cannot separate the acquisition of
knowledge from the context in which it acquires its meaning. Consequently, the distinction between
learning situations and evaluations seems of little importance. Every situation becomes an opportunity
Page 72 de 383
for learning and evaluation insofar as it offers the student the opportunity for metacognition, and an
evaluation of the steps he has taken so far. It provides the teacher with observable data to track the
development of competencies. One of the principal challenges of the new educational program in Québec
schools is the emergence of new evaluation practices compatible with targeted goals, i.e. adapted to the
process of developing competencies and to student diversity. It is within this context that evaluation
integrated into learning takes its meaning, i.e. evaluations whose main role is to manage the learning
process.
The regulation of learning and teaching activities
Let us say straightaway that with regard to the development of competencies, we cannot, properly
speaking, teach a competency. A competency is not knowledge or skills that can be taught, learned,
practiced, and then evaluated. For example, the competency to “write” is knowledge to act that mobilizes
a diversity of external and internal resources and this competency is developed over the years. It calls
upon knowledge and various strategies that the student will gradually have to adopt, but it cannot be
reduced to procedural know-how that is applied in a certain order to a series of predetermined stages.
There are various ways of completing a writing task depending on the goals, the nature of the activity, its
context, the internal and external resources available to the student, etc. To approach learning from the
perspective of competency development is to put in place learning situations that are favourable to this
development, whether completing a task, solving a problem or carrying out a project.
From this point of view, a pedagogical structure includes the planning of learning activities based on
clearly defined teaching goals, their adjustment along the way, and finally a review of the activities to
facilitate learning. Since it is never possible to plan or anticipate all eventualities, the teacher must adapt
his own interventions to the effects observed. Similarly, he must provide timely feedback to the students
on their process, which is also unpredictable. The teacher needs to collect observations on the difficulties
students have encountered and on the learning they have achieved so he can direct or reorient his teaching
practices. Similarly, the teacher needs clues to evaluate the impact of his own interventions if he is to
support students in their learning process. These aspects can relate to both the teacher’s pedagogical
process and the student’s learning process. The on-going adjustments can relate to a specific aspect of the
process or to more general aspects. Thus a distinction is established between micro-regulations, which are
short-term and integrated into the daily work of the teacher, and macro-regulations, which are more
systematic and call for a reflection by the teacher on his practice so he may orient his future interventions.
He can occasionally resort to instrumentation but regulations are generally based on interaction that takes
place during an activity. They also target the gradual involvement of the student in the management or
regulation of his own learning process.
The concept of regulation is linked to the well-known formative evaluation whose principal function is
to ensure the progress of learning through a process of continuous regulation and that allows for
adjustments or improvements along the way. In this respect, Perrenoud (1999) specifies: “any
evaluation that helps the student learn and develop is formative, in other words, it regulates the
learning and development of an educational project “(p. 120). Scallon (1999) formulates a similar
notion when he discusses the formative evaluation in the context of situational pedagogy centered on the
development of competencies and the achievement of trans-disciplinary objectives. Here, the emphasis
is placed on the regulating role brought about by discussions between students and teachers and on the
importance of involving student metacognitive capacity.
However, the concept of formative evaluation initially originated within the behaviourist approach to
teaching and mastery learning, where the methods of regulation considered are corrective in nature and
solely the responsibility of the teacher. The formative evaluation then exerts a stringent control over
student progress relative to predetermined criteria that qualify success. It often takes the form of a
criteria-based test, given after the learning period and followed by remedial teaching. In current
practices, the formative evaluation has gradually lost its significance and initial purpose and become
Page 73 de 383
synonymous with continuous micro-summative evaluations. The competency-based approach invites the
academic environment to reconsider the formative evaluation within the broader framework of
regulation and self-regulation processes occurring along the way, i.e., within the unfolding of the
learning and teaching activities, and subsequent to the activity, to better direct future teacher
interventions. In this respect, the formative evaluation is only one form of regulation among others. The
teacher’s observations, student feedback, student interaction as well as co-evaluation and self-evaluation
processes generally play an important role. In addition, the gradual assumption of responsibility by the
student for regulating his activities not only supports learning, but, more importantly, represents a true
learning objective since it involves developing the student’s metacognitive capacity by allowing him to
self-regulate his own learning processes (Scallon, 1999).
The assessment of acquired learning
From the perspective of evaluation integrated into learning, it is not necessary to dissociate the
assessment of learning that takes place at the end of the cycle and evaluates the learning achieved, from
the regulation activities that support learning, since they complement each other. To assess learning, it
is necessary to follow its progression. In developing competencies, a continuous regulation of learning
and teaching activities is vital and it is considered beneficial to evaluate them at various moments within
the cycle. The role of end-of-cycle assessments is to update the parents on their child’s progress, let the
student know where he stands and provide information for teachers in the upcoming cycle.
Even though the assessment of learning is linked to the summative evaluation, it is nonetheless different
in many ways. In current practice, the summative evaluation can be generally summarized as the sum of
partial results, as formal evaluations or tests carried out periodically during the school year. The
assessment in this case is more a snapshot of the situation using a variety of data collected during the
learning activity and not through formal evaluations designed for this purpose. This data is not merely
cumulative but also subject to interpretation. It is a global and summary assessment relating to one or
more competencies and generally accompanied by more precise data on certain aspects of learning. The
data points to student difficulties and also his strengths, since it is important to focus on these to support
the student in his learning. When a student experiences certain difficulties that require intervention, they
must be clearly defined in order to identify the appropriate support. But it is also essential to underscore
the student’s acquisition, the progress he has achieved and the interest he displays or the particular
aptitudes he possesses. The assessment of learning must be supported by evaluation methods that are
compatible with the characteristics of a given competency (Legendre, 2000). It must take into account the
complexity, as well as the global, interactive and evolutionary character of a competency.
A competency is complex, it is not simply the sum of its components but the result of their dynamic
organization. It can only be evaluated globally, as components cannot be taken separately. In the course
of learning, from a perspective of regulating learning and teaching activities, it can be more advantageous
to work on specific components of the competency, such as a particular skill or knowledge. It is also
pertinent to resort to more precise diagnostic tools to determine the nature or the source of the difficulties
observed. However, we can only judge the development of a competency if the student is regularly placed
in situations that are sufficiently complex to require the mobilization and integrated use of various
resources. It is by confronting the student with various tasks and encouraging him to apply his
competencies, that the teacher will be able to collect pertinent observations to evaluate his level of
development.
A competency is global and integrative since it calls upon a diversity of internal and external resources
and rests on the way an individual orchestrates its use in a given situation. Admittedly, it is possible and
even desirable to identify a priori a certain number of indispensable resources that the student will be
required to call upon in a given situation. But it is never possible to predict in an exhaustive way all the
resources that students will need to accomplish a task, carry out a project or solve a problem. Indeed,
these resources differ from one student to another, since students do not all have the same knowledge and
Page 74 de 383
experience or interests and aptitudes. Consequently, there is more than one way of expressing
competencies within a given situation.
Take the case, for example, of a teacher who should be able to evaluate student competency when it
comes to writing texts even if the students do not use the same vocabulary, or develop ideas and structure
texts differently. As a result, the teacher takes into account the overall totality of the competency when
judging the development of a competency, and not each individual component used. Admittedly, to
achieve various tasks, the student has to make use of varied knowledge and strategies. However, it is not
each mobilized resource that is evaluated but rather the result of their dynamic interaction and
mobilization in a variety of situations. Thus, when evaluating a competency as a professional, the
teacher keeps track of student progress from the start of the training with observations made under a
variety of circumstances. A competency is interactive because it does not exist by itself, but relative to the
contexts in which it is used and the conditions that necessitate its use.
To evaluate a competency, contexts must be provided that require the deliberate activation of the
competency and provide students with resources that maximize its use. For example, we cannot evaluate
the competency “working cooperatively” if a student has not been given opportunities to accomplish tasks
that by their nature require cooperative work. Other competencies will require other settings, contexts and
conditions. The choice of situations that correspond to the competencies we want to observe, the analysis
of resources needed to accomplish the task, and a context that provides meaning, are all essential factors.
However, even when it is designed to elicit the activation of a specific competency, a learning situation
usually calls upon more than one competency. It is therefore an opportunity for both learning and
evaluation. Indeed, the student can only use his competencies if he is given opportunities to do so. And it
is through mastery of competencies that he provides the teacher with pertinent observable data. It is also
during these activities that he can be asked to use his metacognitive capacity to examine his own
competencies. This is why there is no need, even when dealing with assessments, to distinguish between
learning and evaluation situations.
A competency is evolutionary in that it develops through a series of situations in which it is called into
use. However, this gradual development can be done at varying rates and according to different paths.
This makes it difficult to determine a learning sequence that is identical for all students. Even though it is
possible to have benchmarks for the student along the way, these measurements must not be interpreted as
fixed moments in a sequential and linear acquisition process. In addition, with competency being
evolutionary, the observations collected by the teacher in the course of learning, whether informally or
done with the help of various tools, do not have the same degree of meaning relative to the assessment to
be done. The teacher must use his judgment to evaluate the relative relevance of varying data or clues (a
diversity of work, self-evaluation records, observation grids, comments made by the teacher, etc.),
collected in various contexts and at various moments during the course of development. It is also his
responsibility to establish their meaning by placing them in relation to each other.
This broader concept of evaluation, formative as well as summative, places professional judgment in a
central position and also calls into question the role of the teacher as sole judge and evaluator. In a
culture of shared responsibility, it is necessary to tackle the question of evaluation by giving the
interveners the role that is rightfully theirs.
3. A culture of shared responsibility
Even when the teacher implements learning situations targeting specific competencies, especially in the
context of disciplinary learning, the student is necessarily called upon to mobilize other competencies,
specifically transversal competencies that do not belong to a specific learning field but must be developed
within all disciplines. Moreover, competencies acquired in a particular disciplinary context should be
transferable to other disciplinary contexts. It becomes very difficult to limit the influence of the teacher to
Page 75 de 383
a circumscribed field because his interventions contribute to the attainment of general training goals.
Within the framework of a program centered on competency development, each teacher is asked to
contribute to the development of the competencies through his intervention. However, if teachers have a
collective responsibility relative to the general education of students and the development of
competencies, they should also have a collective responsibility with regard to evaluations.
In addition, the new educational program in Québec schools grants students a major role in their own
learning process. From a perspective of evaluations that are integrated into learning, the emphasis placed
on support for learning should ensure that the diverse group of participants responsible for student
education be assigned their appropriate roles, starting with the student himself. Lastly, it is advisable not
to underestimate the importance of the support offered by the school. Therefore, far from isolating the
teacher in his decisions, the role assigned to professional judgment is closely linked to the obligation of
individual and collective means, and all are included in the culture of shared responsibility where it is not
the sole responsibility of the teacher, but rather of the institution as a whole, to implement means likely to
ensure the educational success of the greatest number of students.
The preponderance of professional judgment
The role we want to assign to professional judgment, both within the new educational program in Québec
schools and within evaluation of learning practices, raises many concerns with parents and teachers alike.
Many see a danger of replacing objective measurement with arbitrary interpretations. Parents fear that the
intrusion of the teacher’s judgment will compromise justice, equality and equity. The general belief is that
an evaluation using grades is completely objective by definition and, consequently free from any biased
judgment. Teachers, for their part, worry that they will be accused of being unjust and arbitrary if they do
not rely primarily, even exclusively, on grades to inform the parents of their child’s progress relative to
targeted learning and the level of achievement at end of cycle.
However, whatever its form, an evaluation is a judgment and the use of grades for a normative or criteriabased evaluation in no way removes the need for judgment (de Landsheere, 1980). To make room for the
professional judgment of the teacher is not to introduce arbitrary decisions into an apparently neutral
evaluation process; it is to acknowledge the role of judgment in a professional activity, whatever it may
be. The ability to make a judgment in a field where one is supposed to have acquired expertise is the mark
of a professional. It thus appears essential to clarify the concept of professional judgment.
Let us examine certain characteristics.
A professional judgment is autonomous and based on responsibility.
Every professional is faced with situations he must constantly evaluate in order to make decisions, direct
his interventions and revise them as need be. The professional is not content to merely do what is asked of
him. He has the necessary autonomy to determine what seems suitable based on the data that is available
to him, plus his own knowledge and experience. He is able to assume responsibility for his decisions and
his choices, since the latter are supported by recognized expertise.
A person is regarded as a professional when he possesses knowledge and experience that allow him to
evaluate in a suitable way the various situations to which he is subjected in his practice, to make sound
decisions and to assume responsibility for them by succeeding in his actions and making adjustments
along the way to take new data into account. Autonomy and responsibility do not mean that the
professional acts alone. That is not the case. It is in fact the mark of professional autonomy and
responsibility to seek advice from a more experienced colleague or to find the expertise which
supplements our own when dealing with a situation that taxes the limits of our competency. In this
respect, the teaching profession is no different from any other. The teacher is not a simple doer. In the
daily context of his practice, he never stops evaluating situations in relation to clues that appear
significant to him, in order to make choices and decisions (Perrenoud, 1996). To recognize the value of
the professional judgment of the teacher is not to introduce something new into teaching practices, but
Page 76 de 383
rather to recognize that this judgment exists, and assign it its rightful role in an evaluation that is an
integral part of daily practice. It is accepting to not remove evaluations from the professional tasks
incumbent on the teacher.
A professional judgment is supported by tools.
Every professional has the opportunity to use the diverse tools and instruments that are part of the
external resources available in his field of competency. A surgeon will be able to demonstrate his
expertise all the more if he has at his disposal, the conditions and tools adapted to the nature of the
intervention he is planning to undertake. A doctor will make a better diagnosis if he can subject the
patient to appropriate tests or examinations. In the same way, the teacher has various tools (didactic tools,
evaluation and self-evaluation instruments, etc.) that he can use during professional activities. He must
sometimes adapt the tool to the particular situation at hand. But all in all, when it comes to evaluating a
situation, making a decision and accomplishing an action, every professional has a wealth of useful and
pertinent resources available, if necessary,
Teacher competency however, does not rely on the tools a teacher has at his disposal, but rather on his
ability to put the tools to good use. A tool is neither good nor bad in itself, but rather based on its use
within a given context or in relation to a targeted goal. Regarding the evaluation of learning, certain tools
can perform a refined diagnostic on particular components of the competency, but can prove completely
inadequate when it comes to evaluating the competency in its totality. Accordingly, existing evaluation
methods are not to be discarded but must be supported by a professional judgment that alone makes it
possible to ensure proper usage and, if necessary, to design other tools better adapted to the new
requirements demanded by the follow-up and assessment of competency.
The professional judgment of the teacher is based on his competency to make observations while
the situation unfolds.
To observe does not mean to collect information passively, it means to record, actively organize and
interpret observations based on a frame of reference. To assess the development of competencies on the
basis of observation, two conditions are necessary: access to pertinent data and the ability to give that data
meaning. To access pertinent data, it is important to employ a sufficient number of diversified learning
situations allowing the student to apply his competencies and pursue their development. To interpret data
requires a sufficiently precise representation of the competency whose development is being supported. If
a student is asked only to complete an exercise sheet, the teacher will not have access to data for judging
the level of competency development.
Every task has limitations relative to the data it can provide and every task does not necessarily allow us
to evaluate a competency. To this end, a variety of tasks relative to what we want to observe is needed so
that we may avoid making a global judgment based on an insufficient number of tasks. It is necessary
however to avoid establishing a term-to-term correspondence between the task and the object of
evaluation. One task can call several competencies into play, and the same competency can be required in
several distinct tasks. Admittedly, when the teacher gives the students relatively complex tasks that
require more than one competency, it is not possible to observe everything at the same time. Observation
is selective by definition and it is completely valid to favour specific data based on the goals or the
information sought. But we must not fail to recognize competencies other than the ones targeted by the
observation, when they appear. “What counts in observation, specifies Perrenoud, is more the theoretical
framework that guides and governs the interpretation of what is being observed than the instrumentation
used.”
In this respect, the teacher’s observations are closely linked to the underlying frame of reference, both in
the selection of pertinent data and their interpretation, i.e. the way they relate to each other, their meaning.
The competency that will be observed presupposes not only the ability to design learning situations likely
to provide interesting material for what we wish to observe, but also the ability to interpret the data
Page 77 de 383
collected based on our experience and knowledge. Consequently, an adequate representation of
competencies to be developed and learning situations likely to support their development proves to be
essential.
Professional judgment is an evolutionary judgment as it relies on a portrait taken at a specific time in the
process, a portrait that can be modified through the addition of new information. On the one hand, the
competency is evolving, as is its evaluation since it relies on information observed at a specific moment
and within a specific context and situation. On the other hand, observations by the teacher are incomplete
and can be enriched by the contribution of new data. Indeed, according to the learning situations proposed
to the students and the disciplinary contexts in which they take place, teachers do not necessarily access
the same data. It is thus important, particularly as concerns transversal competencies, to share
observations that come from varied sources.
It is through their actualization in varied disciplinary contexts that teachers will be able to make an
assessment of the student transversal competencies. The judgment of the teacher can thus be enriched by
observations made by other participants, such as other teachers or interveners and even the students
themselves. Professional judgment rests on the close cooperation of the various interveners. New data
can cause the teacher to modify or revise a portion of the judgment. It can also bring about an evolution
of the frame of reference that supports the observations.
Lastly, it should be stressed that a professional judgment must be an ethical judgment in conformity with
a set of values. The teacher must always be careful not to be biased towards the student. His interventions
are intended to support learning and development and must be founded on a “concept of educability”, i.e.
confidence in the potential of the child (Meirieu, 1991). As an educator, every teacher is endowed with a
certain “power” and has an influence on his students. He must use this power and influence in an ethical
manner; he must be particularly sensitive to the impact his evaluations have on the development of the
academic, personal and social identity of the student. Experience acquired in educational environments
often carries lasting influences on the student’s self-image both as a learner and as a human being; it can
have a determining impact on the student’s future social and professional integration. With respect to
ethics, the teacher must acknowledge the limitations of his professional judgment, the need for a solid
foundation and the possibility that his judgment may be called into question.
Conclusion
The new competency-based educational program in Québec schools demands particular requirements that
contribute to the establishment of a favourable context for the emergence of changes relative to the
evaluation of learning. The purpose of this article was to highlight some of these changes. From the
perspective of competency-based development, evaluation should not be considered a separate entity
from the learning process, whose sole function is to make a judgment on the learning achieved. Any
situation can be viewed from the dual perspective of the learning it hopes to achieve and the observations
it elicits in support of the evaluation. It is not necessary therefore to design evaluations that are distinct
from learning situations. In a program that places the specific interventions of the teacher in the broader
context of their contribution to general education, teachers are collectively and not only individually
responsible for providing support to learning. The same applies to evaluation that is also part of the
culture of shared responsibility. Lastly, in this context of collective responsibility, it is important to
recognize the roles and responsibilities of each individual clearly and to examine them in light of their
complementarity. It is from this perspective that the professional judgment takes its true meaning and
acknowledges the expertise of the teacher.
The transition from an evaluation centered on approval and selection to an evaluation whose essential
function is to support learning and teaching marks an important change in our evaluation culture. It goes
without saying that cultural changes do not occur overnight. We must take the time and apply the means
necessary to evolve, to gradually modify current practices and adapt them to new requirements and
constraints. We must also have a clear vision of the direction in which we are headed. Cultural changes do
Page 78 de 383
not mean that we must put aside all current practices and sweep them away. It is rather a realignment to
better identify the role and limitations of evaluation practices and to conceive other ways of evaluating
which supplement and enrich them and contribute towards giving them new meaning in a renewed
context.
(Mme Marie-Françoise Legendre is a professor in the Department of Psycho-pedagogy and Andragogy at
Université de Montréal.)
Page 79 de 383
Page 80 de 383
REFERENCES
CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE L’ÉDUCATION, Le défi d’une réussite de qualité, Avis au ministre de
l’Éducation et à la ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Science, Gouvernement du
Québec, 1993.
DE LANDSHEERE, G., Éducation continue et examens : Précis de docimologie, Paris, Fernand Nathan,
1980.
LEGENDRE, M.-E., “Transformer les savoirs pour les rendre accessibles aux élèves”, Vie pédagogique,
n° 108, September-October 1998, p. 35-38.
LEGENDRE, M. A., La logique d’un programme par compétences, conference given by the ministère de
l’Éducation du Québec, Saint-Hyacinthe, May 2000.
LEMAY, V., Évaluation scolaire et justice sociale, Montréal, Éditions du Renouveau pédagogique, 2000.
MEIRIEU, Ph., Le choix d’éduquer, 2e edition, Paris, ESF editor, 2000.
PERRENOUD, Ph., “Le travail sur l’habitus dans la formation des enseignants : analyse de pratiques et
prise de conscience ”. PAQUAY, L., ALTET, M., CHARLIER, É.
PERRENOUD Ph., Former des enseignants professionnels. Quelles stratégies? Quelles compétences?
Bruxelles, De Boeck, 1996.
PERRENOUD, Ph., Développer des compétences dès l’école, Paris, ESF éditeur, 1997b, (collection
Pratiques et enjeux pédagogiques).
PERRENOUD, Ph., L’évaluation des élèves, Paris et Bruxelles, De Boeck, 1999.
SAINT-ONGE, M., Moi j’enseigne mais eux, apprennent-ils? Éd. Beauchemin, 1992, 106 p. (Agora
collection).
SAINT-ONGE, M., “Les objectifs pédagogiques : pour ou contre? ” Pédagogie collégiale, vol. 6, n° 2,
1992b, p. 23-38.
SAINT-ONGE, M., “Les objectifs pédagogiques pour ou contre? Les pistes de développement ”,
Pédagogie collégiale, vol. 6, n° 3, 1992c, p. 10-15.
TARDIF, J., Intégrer les nouvelles technologies de l’information. Quel cadre pédagogique? Paris, ESF
éditeur, 1998.
Page 81 de 383
Document 2.C
To bring changes to the evaluation of learning40
New trends in the evaluation of learning propose
changes to the nature of the objects evaluated, the
relationship between evaluation and learning, the
way of interpreting results, and the methodology
used.
Two articles published recently in Pédagogie collégiale discussed the major change in
perspective occurring with the evaluation of learning in the United States, where we hear more
and more talk about assessment. This new point of view finds support here, specifically as
concerns authentic evaluations or the assessment of competencies.
This article includes excerpts from L’évaluation
des apprentissages : du cours au programme. It
includes two instalments: the first one introduces
the problem and the second presents the initial part
of the reference framework for the evaluation of
learning. It will be followed by a second instalment
in the fall and will include suggestions and material
to support changes in evaluation of learning
practices. This documentation was produced by a
working group at Performa, thanks to a subsidy
from the Regroupement des collèges Performa.
Cécile D’Amour served as research agent. The
excerpts used for this article are taken from section
C.2 of Booklet I (p.30-36) and section A.3 of
Booklet II (p. 15-17).
The new perspective differs from the one that has prevailed to date, and many are calling it the
new paradigm i.e. a set of concepts, assumptions, principles, and behaviours adopted by a
community of researchers or interveners, which guides research and activity in a given field.
At a time when many within the collegial environment are questioning the evaluation of learning,
the new paradigm can undoubtedly help the debate move forward: it can be used as a frame of
reference for teachers who wish to reflect on their evaluation practices and beliefs and the values
that underscore them; and it can be a promising pathway for teachers who seek to extricate
themselves from the rut of grade management, bring changes to evaluations and turns them into
pedagogical activities. It can also be a source of inspiration enabling evaluation of learning
measures that are being implemented in colleges today to be more than just administrative rulings
and truly contribute to the quality of teaching and learning.
We will examine this new perspective, specifying the dimensions and factors of change in
question by examining how it is being expressed in writings and by identifying the characteristics
of an evaluation of learning that uses this new paradigm as its starting point.
40
Translated from Cécile D’Amour, “Changer l’évaluation des apprentissages”, Pédagogie collégiale, mai 1996,
vol. 9, no 4.
Page 82 de 383
Dimensions and factors of change
Authors who define the context of the paradigm shift speak of various dimensions of change. We
have identified four key ones: the nature of the objects of evaluation, the relationship between
evaluation and learning, the interpretation of summative evaluation results, and the methodology
used to carry out an evaluation.
The nature of the objects of evaluation
The object of evaluation is still learning, but the nature of the learning in question has changed as
a result of two influences, one from within the world of education and the other from without.
On one hand, teaching and learning concepts have been modified, particularly by the influence of
constructivism and cognitivist psychology; on the other hand, learning objectives have also
changed: they often relate to higher abilities of integration and transfer ― with transfer taking
place not only within the academic context but also beyond.
The relationship between evaluation and learning
We now consider evaluation as an integral part of learning. Previously, the accent in evaluation
was placed on validation; the main emphasis is now on support of learning, both from the
perspective of a diagnostic tool and an evaluation per se.
Here too, internal and external influences have been at work: changes in learning concepts have
brought to light various aspects requiring diagnostic interventions and the regulation of learning
(non-linear character of the process, positive role of errors, affective dimensions, etc.). Besides,
social requirements relative to academic success are on the rise, both qualitatively and
quantitatively. This calls for support measures that are more present and diversified.
The interpretation of summative evaluation results
Whereas the normative perspective once prevailed, a clear consensus is now spreading with
regard to the relevance of using criteria-based interpretation: the learning achieved by a student
is compared to the targeted goal (evaluation with a criteria-based interpretation) rather than
being compared to the performance of others or distributed according to the normal curve
(normative evaluation).
This change results mainly from the fact that school is designed (at the very least, this is what the
official statements say) as an instrument of training, of personal and professional development,
and not as an instrument of social selection.
Methodology
The role of measurement is redefined and reduced, the role of observation and judgment is
increased; qualitative methods are employed, concepts of validity and reliability are re-examined
to better adapt them to the conditions of evaluation which prevail in education (and which differ
largely from psychometrics), etc. These changes are closely dependent on the four dimensions of
change that we have just described. As such, changes in the nature of the objects of evaluation,
in the evaluation-learning relationship and in the way of interpreting the results will necessarily
bring about modifications in methodology. Moreover, two other factors are at play here. On the
one hand, like many other fields in humanities, evaluation is progressively freeing itself from the
vice-grip of measurements and quantitative methods. On the other, we are witnessing increased
requirements with regard to the quality and reliability of evaluation, and for a number of reasons:
— increased awareness of the importance given to social expectations relative to the
effectiveness of academic establishments;
Page 83 de 383
— increased awareness of the impact of evaluation methods and results on students’ study
behaviour, their goals and the paths they choose for their studies and career;
— general social tendency to respect rights of individuals, to seek fairness and equity;
— general tendency towards professionalism in teaching;
— importance of reliable information on student acquisitions in order to offer the most
coherent and effective type of education.
We should mention that evaluation concepts evolve due to underlying philosophies that also
evolve through social constraints. Consequently, evaluation methods are also changing.
Furthermore, we can say “it is thanks to research and evolution in humanities, education and
cognitive psychology that our understanding of the new paradigm is evolving”.
What’s in a name
When we read current writings on the assessment of learning originating from Québec and
elsewhere, many expressions are used to describe trends that are more or less current, and more or
less widespread, relative to the evaluation of learning. Expressions like: competency assessment,
assessment, authentic assessment, alternative assessment, and performance-based assessment.
To make sense of all this, it is useful to clarify the meaning of these expressions, in particular by
associating them with the four dimensions of change we mentioned earlier. It should be noted that
the meaning given to each expression varies based on the author! In addition, an explicit
definition is not always provided. To help the reader distinguish clearly among meanings, we will
discuss what seems essential as well as elements that may help better understand the meaning of
the new trends in evaluation.
Page 84 de 383
Key
dimensions of
change
Trends
Alternative
assessment
Among the many expressions linked to new trends in evaluation of One or several
learning, “alternative assessment” is the most generic. It is used by most dimensions
authors to qualify the various practices that differ from traditional
practices, particularly standardized multiple-choice tests.
Assessment
The assessment is a type of evaluation characterized by systematic
observation and judgment that is criteria-based, and by its support for
learning. It is truly in the service of learning and integrated within the
process of learning itself. This perspective is accurately expressed by
the term “assessment as learning”.
Methodology
Relationship
between
evaluation and
learning
This perspective of evaluation as a support for learning is similar to the
concept of formative and diagnostic evaluations; it is also compatible
with the use of assessment for the purpose of sanctioning learning.
Learningassisted
evaluation
To the best of our knowledge, this expression was introduced by Hadji3. Relationship
It reflects a similar approach to assessment as learning.
between
evaluation and
learning
Competency
assessment
Authors who talk about competency assessment highlight the specific Nature of
nature of competencies as well as the methodological requirements for learning and,
this type of evaluation.
therefore,
evaluation
There is an obvious interest in using a “performance-based evaluation”
objects
to assess multidimensional learning that is integrated and transferable, as
is the case with competencies (this does not mean that performance is Methodology
the only type of competency indicator that can be used).
Page 85 de 383
Performance
assessment
Process/
Product
assessment
The expression “performance assessment” highlights the type of data Methodology
used to make a judgment. In spite of the variations shown by different
authors, it is always a student activity (an action, behaviour, a
demonstration, etc.) that allows for the most direct observation of
student skills and ability to use the learning.
We should not lose sight of the fact that within a learning approach
based on competency, it is the performance, the process and the product,
which are strictly speaking, indicators of competency ― not the
competency itself. Here, the degree of inference is relatively decreased
in relation to other indicators.
Therefore, the value relative to the evaluation of performance, the
evaluation of the process, and the evaluation of the product, refer
essentially to the methodological dimensions of change ― resulting
from the modifications to the nature of learning we want to evaluate.
Performancebased
assessment
Authentic
assessment
In a context of education within a competency-based approach, it seems
appropriate to speak of a “performance-based assessment” rather than a
“performance assessment”.
When we speak of authentic assessment, we refer to the characteristics Methodology
of the tasks and evaluation contexts that are being investigated.
In an authentic evaluation, the student not only directly demonstrates his
mastery of the competency; he does it within a context and with tasks
that bear key similarities to real situations requiring the competency.
This authenticity of task and context can appear under various guises:
the stimulus, complex task, time allocated for the achievement of the
task, available resources, control of the student over how to carry out the
task, quality standards of performance, requirements, consequences, etc.
Criteria-based In an evaluation based on criteria, the evaluation judgment is supported Methodology
by criteria and comparing student results to the targeted end-of-learning
assessment
objectives rather than by comparing them to the results of a global
student population.
Translated from Pédagogie collégiale, vol. 9, no 4, May 1996.
Page 86 de 383
An evaluation of learning marked by the new paradigm
The new paradigm involves important changes to our usual ways of evaluating learning. Below
is an outline of the methodological characteristics of an evaluation of learning at collegial level
that reflects the new trends.
The objects
The evaluation must be adapted to a competency-based approach, dealing with learning that is
complex, multidimensional, integrated and transferable. This requires an evaluation that:
— is global, holistic, multidimensional; contextualized;
— provides students with authentic opportunities to demonstrate their competencies;
— assures a standardization of conditions for evaluation criteria and success.
The function
Within the framework of the new paradigm, evaluation is truly at the service of learning. It must
be integrated into the teaching-learning process to guide, support, help the student to assume
responsibility for his learning and, finally, validate the learning achieved in a consistent fashion.
To achieve this, we must ensure that evaluations:
— are dynamic rather than static (snapshots taken at various moments to create a portrait of
learning in motion; focusing on the process used and not only results);
— are didactic in perspective, not exclusively docimological;
— are not merely official statements or judgments, but also provide a diagnostic dimension;
— are open to many adjustments in the pursuit of learning;
— benefit from the input of a variety of evaluators (teacher who guided the learning, other
teachers, students, evaluators from outside the school environment);
— are capable of encompassing not only the cognitive dimension but also affective aspects;
— withhold the final judgment on acquired learning until the end of the learning period.
The interpretation of results
It is necessary to use a criteria-based evaluation for an interpretation that judges the achievement
of learning objectives, rather than one that classifies students in relation to each other (evaluation
with a normative interpretation). This is an evaluation that:
— uses a qualitative approach with descriptive methods;
— is concerned with validity rather than discrimination resulting from a docimological
(measurement and evaluation) point of view.
Conclusion
Adopting the new paradigm means significant changes in the way we view and carry out
evaluations of learning. We believe that these changes can greatly benefit the collegial
environment and the school system in its entirety. It is necessary however to be aware that when
we speak of a paradigm change, we are on the side of specialists rather than practitioners.
Teachers are often quite adept with the paradigm of “pragmatic intuition” says De Ketele4. In
many cases, they are unaware of the thought processes at the heart of their own practices.
Therefore these practices can display varying degrees of similarities to the old paradigm that once
dominated the world of specialists.
Page 87 de 383
This great diversity in evaluation practices and their intuitive character must be taken into account
because they create difficulties when adopting a new frame of reference and new practices, in
particular with conceptual confusion and anachronistic elements (old concepts and practices that
persist within the new policies).
As stated by Howe and Ménard, “the transition from the old paradigm to the new one is not done
without confusion. Indeed, in pedagogical discourse, evaluation concepts are often incorrectly
identified as relating to one paradigm or another. And to further complicate the matter, many do
not even seem aware that a paradigm, old or new, is at the centre of this debate.”
To bring about pertinent changes that are coherent and long lasting, we need clarity and
understanding. It is also necessary for teachers to understand what lies beneath their practice, to
introduce greater controls and coherence and to link their practice to a frame of reference.
While aware of the work and remaining questions, it seems pertinent that teachers adopt coherent
evaluation methods based on the new perspective being implemented in the field of evaluation of
learning. Current thinking and experimentation carried out by teaching personnel will also
contribute to the consolidation of new trends.
1. Translated from J. Laliberté, “D’autres façons de concevoir et de faire l’évaluation des
apprentissages ”, Pédagogie collégiale, vol. 8, no 3, March 1995, p. 9-13; Robert Howe
and Louise Ménard, “Un nouveau paradigme en évaluation des apprentissages ”
2. Robert Howe and Louise Ménard, ibid., p. 39.
3. C. Hadji, “L’apprentissage assisté par l’évaluation (A. A. E.), mythe ou réalité? ”
Cahiers pédagogiques, no 231, February 1990, p. 20-23.
4. J.-M. De Ketele, “L’évaluation conjuguée en paradigmes ”, Revue française de pédagogie,
n° 103, April, May and June 1995, p. 59-80.
5. Robert Howe and Louise Ménard, ibid
Page 88 de 383
Chapter 3
The vision and impact of study programs
centered on competencies
In many countries, recent and current educational reforms are centered on the implementation of
competency-based programs. This is true for pre-school, primary and secondary levels as well as
higher education. These reforms generally result from an educational paradigm that is shifting
from systems centered on teaching to systems centered on learning. In turn, these changes impact
evaluation practices whether they deal with the evaluation of learning and teaching, or the
evaluation of a program and an institution.
In such a context, the implementation of programs centered on the development of
competencies calls for a change in the “evaluation culture” and confirms the necessity to
accord equal importance to the progress of learning and the final validation of the targeted
competencies. To monitor the progress of learning we need “authentic” and/or “alternative”
evaluation practices that identify and document progress and a demonstration of learning.
According to Philippe Perrenoud, in a context where it is necessary “to act urgently and decide in
uncertainty”, it is essential to distinguish between competency-based programs and programs
based on pedagogical objectives, then to accurately define the concept of competency and to
analyze its impact on teaching activities and the evaluation of learning.
When we speak of an evaluation based on competencies, we are interested in the mobilization by
the student of integrated knowledge for the purpose of accomplishing a specific action
(production or construction of knowledge) where effectiveness will depend on the judgment
exercised by the student. A competency is evaluated via complex and practical tasks necessary to
carry out a role or function. Evaluation of learning in a program centered on competencies
focuses on the accomplishment of a variety of tasks to deduce the presence of a competency. The
tools required for the competency assessment will relate to tasks that are as close as possible to
those the students will encounter both inside their academic environment and outside. This
involves the authentic evaluation described below. To get a picture of “The vision behind study
programs centered on competencies: their impact on planning and evaluation”, we cover, in this
activity, the following aspects:
— The development of study programs:
o
study programs based on pedagogical objectives,
o
study programs centered on competencies;
— The concept of competency;
— The characteristics of competencies and their impact on planning;
— The characteristics of competencies and their impact on evaluation;
— Principles connected to the evaluation of a competency;
— The concept of authentic evaluation.
Page 89 de 383
Chapter Synopsis:
Activity 3:
Characteristics of competencies and their impact on
Activity 3.1:
Study program and the concept of competency
Activity 3.2:
Characteristics of a competency and their impact
Activity 3.3:
Principles connected to the assessment of a competency
and the contribution of the authentic assessment
Learning tools:
Learning tool 3.A:
Learning tool 3.B:
Learning tool 3.C:
Learning tool 3.D:
course planning
Learning tool 3.E:
Characteristics of competencies and their impact on the
Learning tool 3.F:
Principles connected to the assessment of a competency
Learning tool 3.G:
The authentic evaluation
Learning tool 3.H:
Tension between traditional and modern ways of
thinking
Documents:
Document 3.A:
Document 3.B:
Evaluation in authentic situations (the foundation)
Complementary documents:
François LASNIER, The principles of evaluation in
competency-based learning (CBL) linked to the
principles of competency-based learning (CBL)
Page 90 de 383
Activity 3
Characteristics of competencies and their impact
on course planning and the evaluation of learning
Heading
Objectives
Characteristics of competencies and their impact
The comparison between a study program based on pedagogical objectives and
one centered on competencies.
To validate one’s concept of competency.
To evaluate the impact of the characteristics of a competency on instructional
planning and the evaluation of learning.
Description
The vision behind a study program centered on competencies is a replacement
solution for programs based on objectives that are connected to a disciplinary
content. In a competency-based approach, the focus is not on content that is
external to the individual but rather on the integration by the individual of
knowledge (theoretical and practical), skills and the attitudes necessary for the
accomplishment of complex tasks that are meaningful to the student and
necessary for his later adaptation to adult life.
Once this vision is understood, the activity focuses on a definition of the
concept of competency. Characteristics of the concept are evaluated relative
to their impact on instructional planning and particularly on the evaluation of
learning. Subsequent to this, we can identify principles connected to the
evaluation of a competency and justify the use of authentic evaluations.
Unfolding
Activity 3.1: Study programs and the concept of competency
Study programs
A. Give each participant the synthesis reference card (Learning tool 3.A)
“Development of a study program”. After an initial reading, each
individual completes the card while jotting down his thoughts on each of
the statements.
B. Using the synthesis reference card, information is pooled and discussed
in small work groups.
C. Recommended preliminary reading of the document: “Development of a
study program” (Document 3.A) that introduces the foundations of a
competency-based program.
Concept of competency
D. Participants take a few moments to write their own definition of
competency.
E. Pooling of the definitions of competency drafted by participants.
F.
Discussion on the
(Learning tool 3.B).
proposed
definition
of
a
competency
Page 91 de 383
Activity 3.2: Characteristics of a competency and their impact
G. Presentation, clarification and exchanges on the characteristics of a
competency using learning tool 3.C: “Characteristics of competencies
and their impact on course planning and the evaluation of learning.”
H. Individually, each participant completes the second column of learning
tool 3.C.
I.
In groups, validate the answers using learning tool 3.D: “Characteristics
of a competency and their impact on instructional planning”.
J.
Individually, each participant completes the third column of learning tool
3.C
K. In groups, validate the answers using learning tool 3.E: “Characteristics
of a competency and their impact on the evaluation of learning”.
L. Reserve some time at the end of the meeting to allow participants to
individually assess the consequences of what they have observed as well
as their own evaluation practices and to share this with other participants.
Activity 3.3: Principles connected to the assessment of a competency and
the contribution of the authentic assessment
Principles connected to an evaluation
M. Presentation, clarification and group exchanges on the principles
connected to the assessment of a competency using learning tool 3.F.
N. Evaluate the need, relevance and usefulness of the principles connected
to the assessment of a competency.
O. Make a global assessment by analyzing the impact on personal evaluation
practices.
Authentic evaluation
P.
Presentation, clarification and group exchanges on the concept of
“authentic evaluation” using learning tool 3.G “The authentic evaluation”
and Document 3.B “Evaluation in authentic situations (the foundations)”.
We can also refer to learning tool 6.F for a description of an authentic
situation.
Q. Discussion on the contribution of this concept to the development of a
competency.
R. Make a global assessment by analyzing the consequences on personal
evaluation practices.
Assessment relative to the changes
S.
Individual reading of learning tool 3.H: “Tension between traditional and
modern ways of thinking”.
T. Group exchanges on the implications of change.
Page 92 de 383
Moderator’s role
To support personal reflection.
To reach a consensus.
To use strategies that assist in the structuring of knowledge.
To freely express personal concepts.
To actively participate in group exchanges to compare and validate personal
concepts.
Required material
Learning tools:
—
Learning tool 3.A: Development of a study program
—
Learning tool 3.B: Definition of a competency
—
Learning tool 3.C: Characteristics of competencies and their impact on
—
Learning tool 3.D: Characteristics of competencies and their impact on
course planning
—
Learning tool 3.E: Characteristics of competencies and their impact on
the evaluation of learning
—
Learning tool 3.F: Principles connected to the assessment of a
competency
—
Learning tool 3.G: The authentic evaluation
—
Learning tool 3.H: Tension between traditional and modern ways of
thinking
Documents:
—
Document 3.A:
—
Document 3.B:
Evaluation in authentic situations
Complementary
documents
—
François Lasnier, The principles of evaluation in competency-based
learning (CBL) linked to the principles of competency-based learning
(CBL)
Approximate
duration
Activity 3.1:
3 hours
Activity 3.2:
4 hours
Activity 3.3:
3 hours
Page 93 de 383
Learning tool 3.A
Development of a study program41
Goals of a study program based
on teaching objectives
Goals of a study program based
on competency development
Study programs based on teaching objectives
generally target a vast amount of knowledge, skills
and components of social development that the
student must acquire to function adequately in life.
The vision behind a study program centered on
competencies is also a replacement solution for
programs based on objectives linked to a
disciplinary content. In a competency-based
approach, the focus is not on contents external to
This goal is generally reflected in disciplinary
the individual, but rather on the integration by the
content that tends to be piecemeal and divided into
individual of knowledge (theoretical and practical),
teaching objectives.
skills and attitudes necessary to satisfactorily
accomplish complex and meaningful tasks, that are
necessary for the adaptation of the student to adult
life.
Several authors clearly stress the need to base the
new study programs on a cognitivist approach to
competencies.
Personal comments on the subject
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
41
Translated from Roland Louis, L’évaluation des apprentissages en classe : Théorie et pratique, Éditions Études Vivantes,
Montréal, 1999, p. 19-26.
Page 94 de 383
Study program based on
pedagogical objectives
Study program centered on
competency development
Definition of a teaching objective
A teaching objective is a statement of intent that
specifies and determines lasting changes that are to
take place in a subject during a teaching situation or
subsequent to one.
From a cognitivist perspective, competency is a
state and ability to act rather than a specific action.
This state is dependent on a structure of conceptual
knowledge and methodology, attitudes and values
that enable the person to make assessments and
An objective is defined for each of the disciplinary
adapt actions to complex and varied situations.
contents and identifies the learning to be acquired
by the student.
Competency is the exercise of judgment in the
choice and application of required knowledge to
effectively carry out an action based on a problem
statement and the context in which the action takes
place.
Competency is the result of a mobilization by the
student of declarative, procedural and conditional
knowledge for the successful accomplishment of an
action having implications on his environment and
his adaptation to adult life.
Personal comments on the subject…………………………………………………….………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Page 95 de 383
Characteristics
Dependent on an approach where disciplinary
contents are external to the individual, objectives
are usually specific to subject matter and the
acquisition of knowledge and skills development
occurs theoretically, in a sequential manner.
From this standpoint, a competency displays the
following characteristics:
— it is internal to the person;
— it integrates knowledge, skills and attitudes;
This approach tends to cause teachers to focus on — it manifests itself in events and in problem
situations occurring in a person’s life;
covering the content of the discipline and to parcel
out the learning given to students.
A person’s lack of demonstration of mastery of a
Moreover, the cognitive aspect (knowledge and competency does not necessarily mean it is absent.
skills) tends to become more important than the It can mean that for various reasons, the context
does not allow the competency to be called into use.
emotional aspect (personal conduct).
teaching The judgment that the student must exercise is
based on three types of knowledge required to
perform the action and evaluate its effectiveness
is external to the learner in training;
within a specific context. As the definition of a
competency suggests, the teacher does not view
is predetermined and fixed;
knowledge in an isolated way. Rather he is attentive
parcels out the contents of learning and argues
to:
that the sum of the parts is equal to the whole;
— the integration of three types of knowledge that
generally distinguishes learning according to
allow the competency to be used;
cognitive
(cognitive
skills),
emotional
(attitudes) and psychomotor (psychomotor — transversal knowledge relative to various
disciplines;
skills) fields;
Inspired by
objective:
—
—
—
—
behaviourist
theory,
a
— generally considers that failure to achieve an — the exercise student judgment in the effective
accomplishment of the action.
objective is an indicator of the absence of
learning in the individual.
Personal comments on the subject………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Page 96 de 383
The evaluation in a …
When our attention is focused on the content of a
discipline, we tend to emphasize what the student
must know and do in order to fulfill the
requirements for mastery. This is why the definition
includes a set objectives referred to as pedagogical
because they are centered on expected student
learning.
The logic that guides evaluations centered on preset
behaviour objectives, seems different from
evaluations that take student judgment into account
when mobilizing knowledge for the effective
accomplishment of an action.
Practices originating from the use of preset
objectives lead to evaluations that separate
From this point of view, knowledge results from the declarative knowledge from procedural and
accumulation of specific skills (objectives) conditional knowledge.
prioritized according to the requirements of the
For example, questions in one exam may measure
discipline. The evaluative approach that results
declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and
from this paradigm will focus on a quantitative
sometimes conditional knowledge separately. The
analysis of the knowledge acquired by the person
totality of correct answers is then considered an
undergoing the training.
indicator of student integration of the three types of
Consequently, the evaluation will generally pay knowledge.
attention to objectives of a cognitive nature
When an evaluation centered on competencies is
connected to the discipline. This is what we call an
used, it is necessary to pay attention to the
evaluation centered on disciplinary content.
mobilization by the student of the three types of
The evaluation of learning consists in validating the integrated knowledge used to carry out an action
accomplishment of preset objectives that relate only (production or construction of learning) and its
to the content of the discipline that is being studied effectiveness will depend on this judgment.
by the learner.
There is another characteristic that distinguishes an
objective from a competency. If the objective
normally derives directly from theoretical
knowledge and disciplinary
content, the
competency on the other hand is based on complex
and
practical
tasks
necessary
for
the
accomplishment of a role or function. Disciplinary
content is, of course, always present. However, this
is only one category of the resources necessary for
completion of the task.
In other words, if the accomplishment of a task
requires specific disciplinary knowledge, the
mastery of this knowledge is not necessarily an
indication of the ability to realize the task. The
evaluation of learning in a program centered on
competencies will focus on the accomplishment of
a variety of tasks, which infer the presence of the
competency. The tools necessary for an assessment
of competency will relate as much as possible to
tasks that are close to student’s real life, in and
away from school.
Page 97 de 383
Personal comments on the subject……………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Page 98 de 383
Learning tool 3.B
The recommended definition designed to support program development is as follows: “A training
objective centered on the development of the student’s ability to identify and effectively solve, in an
autonomous way, problems specific to a family of situations on the basis of integrated and pertinent
resources”. The table below details this definition.
Competency is …
—
A training objective
In a training context, it is the final referent in training (objective to be
reached during the training period), its meaning reflects general training
needs, the work function or the capacity for higher education in a given
field, thus the entry level for a particular function.
—
centered on the
development of student
ability
A competency is acquired through practice. It requires time and
frequent use by the student himself.
—
to be autonomous
To be competent means that a person is able to identify and use
necessary resources, in an autonomous manner.
—
to identify and to
resolve
A competency requires a problem situation where a strategy or
procedure must be used to reach a targeted goal.
—
effectively
The implementation of a competency by the student must be effective
and produce the desired results, in conformity with established
standards.
—
problems specific to a
family of situations
Competency is always contextualized; it is always linked to a field of
activity or given knowledge.
—
Competency is a structured unit that integrates diverse resources
on the basis of
integrated and pertinent (knowledge, skills, attitudes and values) to make up a competency, with
each resource being called upon when required.
resources
These resources are pertinent because they were selected on the basis of
their usefulness and potential for action in real life or in a specific
disciplinary field.
Translated from Pôle de lest, (1996) and D. Raymond, (2001).
Page 99 de 383
The characteristics of competencies
An analysis of the various definitions of “competency” enables us to identify its essential characteristics.
The sum of these characteristics amounts to its overall qualities. Some characteristics complete each
other, others define and some are connected by cause and effect. These characteristics have an impact on
the pedagogical development of programs, course planning and the evaluation of learning. The
characteristics are outlined below.
Identified characteristics
A competency is a second generation objective, A TRAINING TARGET.
A competency is MULTIDIMENSIONAL.
A competency is A POTENTIAL FOR ACTION.
A competency is defined in relation to known benchmarks: STANDARDS.
A competency is AN ABILITY LINKED TO A REAL LIFE ACTIVITY.
A competency is AN INTEGRATED TOTALITY of skills.
A competency is a skill acquired as a result of EXPERIENCE.
A competency relies on PERTINENT knowledge.
A competency is ability TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF PROBLEMS and RESOLVE
THEM.
A competency is related to a SPECIFIC FIELD of action.
A competency is A CAPACITY FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION.
A competency is A CAPACITY FOR EFFECTIVE ACTION.
A competency is A CAPACITY FOR STABILITY OF ACTION.
A competency is A FINAL TRAINING OBJECTIVE.
These characteristics can be grouped in several ways. To group them helps improve retention and
integration. Each grouping has a specific meaning. For example, see below:
A competency is a final training target that:
— is centered on the development of a capacity for autonomous action that is immediate,
standardized and stable;
— relies on the identification and resolution of problems in a specific field of action;
— mobilizes multidimensional resources that are integrated and pertinent (knowledge, skills,
attitudes and values).
Page 100 de 383
Learning tool 3.C
Characteristics of competencies and
their impact on course planning
and the evaluation of learning42
Characteristics
of a competency
Consequently, in my
course planning, I …
Consequently, in my
evaluation, I …
List required actions
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………….......
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
3- A competency is a
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
TRAINING OBJECTIVE.
Which means:
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………….......
2- A competency is
MULTIDIMENSIONAL.
Which means:
POTENTIAL FOR ACTION.
Which means:
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………….......
42
Translated from the characteristics of a competency by Pierre Deshaies, Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier, “La conception
de la compétence”, Recueil intégrateur, Section I : Une vision intégrée de la formation au collégial, (soon to be published),
Sherbrooke, regroupement des collèges Performa, 2003.
Page 101 de 383
4- A competency is defined in List required actions
relation to a known
…………………………………
threshold: A STANDARD.
…………………………………
Which means:
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………….......
5- A competency is AN
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
ABILITY LINKED TO A
REAL LIFE ACTIVITY.
Which means:
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………….......
6- A competency is AN
INTEGRATED TOTALITY of
skills.
Which means:
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………….......
7- A competency is a skill
acquired as a result of
EXPERIENCE.
Which means:
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………….......
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
Page 102 de 383
8- A competency relies on
PERTINENT knowledge.
Which means:
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………….......
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
9-
A competency is the ability List required actions
TO DEFINE THE
…………………………………
SCOPE OF PROBLEMS
…………………………………
and RESOLVE THEM.
…………………………………
Which means:
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………….......
10- A competency is related to List required actions
a SPECIFIC FIELD of
…………………………………
action.
…………………………………
Which means:
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………….......
CAPACITY FOR
IMMEDIATE ACTION.
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
Which means:
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
………………………………
…………………………........
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
Page 103 de 383
CAPACITY FOR
EFFECTIVE ACTION.
Which means:
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
CAPACITY FOR STABILITY
OF ACTION.
Which means:
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
14- A competency is a FINAL List required actions
TRAINING OBJECTIVE.
…………………………………
Which means:
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
Page 104 de 383
Learning tool 3.D
Characteristics of competencies and their impact on course planning43
Characteristics
1-
A
competency
OBJECTIVE.
Explanation
is
a
TRAINING
Impact on planning
A competency is first and foremost a training —
objective, i.e. a 2nd generation objective achieved
during the course of studies. It is dependent on a —
standard that has been adapted to a training level and
not the level of competency of an expert in the field.
—
(see characteristic 5)
—
2-
A competency is
MULTIDIMENSIONAL.
Once acquired, the competency becomes a capacity. —
This capacity to act relies on resources concurrently
connected
to
cognitive,
psychomotor
and —
socioaffective fields. A competency is not onedimensional. (see characteristic 6)
—
—
43
Make sure that the goal is adapted to the
level of training
Ensure the goal is adapted to the role of
the course within the program
Make sure that the goal is written in
language understood by the student so he
may position his learning relative to the
targeted competency
Make sure that the summative evaluation
deals as much as possible exclusively with
the competency and its use by the student
Highlight essential components connected
to each of the three resource fields
Create teaching and learning activities that
incorporate each type of resource
Create teaching and learning activities that
target the integration of resources
connected to each field
Present the student with complete and
global tasks connected to each field
Translated from Pierre Deshaies, Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier, “La conception de la compétence”, Recueil intégrateur, Section I : Une vision intégrée de la formation au
collégial, (à paraître), Sherbrooke, regroupement des collèges Performa, 2003.
Page 105 de 383
Characteristics
Explanation
Impact on planning
3-
A competency is an internal state, a potential linked
to an action and not the action itself, which is its
performance (the observable and measurable
components of competencies); some authors use the
expressions “virtual competency” and “effective
competency”. The principal indicator of an effective
competency is the successful resolution of the
problem; other indicators are the process used, how
the student describes his own process and the result
of his actions.
—
A competency is a POTENTIAL FOR
ACTION.
—
—
Plan teaching, learning and evaluation
activities relative to the 3 following
indicators: result of actions, the process
used, how the student describes his own
process and the result of his actions
Evaluate, or have the student selfevaluate frequently the use of a
competency in all its complexity
Guide the student to describe and
evaluate his own problem solving process
4-
A competency is defined in relation
to a known threshold, A STANDARD.
—
A competency is the ability to act effectively with a
degree of mastery that varies according to the level of
training. A competency thus implies a consensus on
conditions of achievement, on criteria and on a
minimal threshold of performance adapted to the
level of training. Without this consensus, a definition —
of the targeted competency is not possible nor is a
shared judgment validating the existence or nonexistence of the competency.
Develop a concerted approach to
evaluation among teachers, in each of the
program courses (conditions of
achievement, criteria and common
thresholds)
Provide students with evaluation grids
that have precise performance thresholds
5-
A competency is an ABILITY
A competency is a training objective that is pertinent —
due to its real connection to post-education, i.e. the
labour world, university and everyday living. The
—
selection of targeted competencies in a given program
is based on an analysis of work related situations,
—
training related situations, real life and social
situations. (see characteristic 8)
—
Ensure an understanding of the
objective’s relevance
Highlight the objective’s relevance during
the course presentation
Respect the objective’s relevance in the
planning of learning activities
Present the student with complex tasks
that are as real as possible (“authentic”
situations)
LINKED TO A REAL LIFE ACTIVITY.
Page 106 de 383
Characteristics
Explanation
Impact on planning
6- A competency is an INTEGRATED
TOTALITY of skills.
A competency is an ability that rests on a structured
whole and integrates various types of resources:
knowledge, skills, attitudes and values. (see
characteristic 2)
—
7- A competency is a skill acquired as a
result of EXPERIENCE.
A competency is an ability to resolve problems with
adroitness subsequent to repeated use.
—
8- A competency relies on PERTINENT
knowledge.
A competency is an ability that rests on an organized —
network of pertinent resources (knowledge, skills,
attitudes, and values), specific to the competency; it —
is not the discipline that decides the relevance of
these resources, but their usefulness and potential
ability to act within a field. (see characteristic 5)
—
Identify resources that are essential to the
development of the competency
Highlight the relevance of these resources
within the development of the
competency
Create teaching, learning and evaluation
activities that focus mainly on these
essential resources
9-
A competency is an ability to resolve problems: the —
student must construct a mental model of the problem
and identify the process used to reach the goal.
Autonomously, the student must know: what to do,
—
how to do it, when and why, and to anticipate the
consequences. Finally he must self-evaluate his
—
actions based on specific criteria.
Identify situations where the student must
detect the problem, find a model and
resolve it by himself
Schedule frequent problem resolution
activities for the student
Explicitly teach procedures required for
action
Gradually guide the student to selfevaluate his performance
A competency is the ability TO
DEFINE THE SCOPE OF PROBLEMS
and RESOLVE THEM.
—
—
Highlight the structure of the resources
linked to the competency
Create teaching and learning activities
that target the development of this type
competency within the student
Ask the student frequently to use the
Page 107 de 383
Characteristics
Explanation
Impact on planning
10- A competency is related to a
SPECIFIC FIELD of action.
A competency is an ability linked to a diversity of
actions in a family of situations. It is specific to a
field of activities yet remains general, i.e., it remains
the same for a whole range of actions within the
field. The student must surpass the specificity of the
action and be able to carry out other actions in
similar but different contexts, i.e., to “transfer” the
knowledge.
—
A competency is an ability to identify and resolve
problems rapidly yet effectively. It is not enough just
to do well at the right time; the student must be able
to act “immediately”. This means he has integrated
the procedures for use and the competency has a
certain automatism. This immediacy relies on
procedural quality.
—
Effectiveness is the ability to autonomously and
quickly resolve problems based on a set of standards
and related to a family of situations. Effectiveness is
based on the characteristics of a competency such as
the ability to define the scope of problems and
resolve them, a capacity for immediate and stable
action that is linked to set standards.
—
11- A competency is a CAPACITY FOR
IMMEDIATE ACTION.
12- A competency is a CAPACITY FOR
EFFECTIVE ACTION.
—
—
Teach the student to reflect on the
structure of resources linked to the
competency
Teach the student to surpass the
specificity of the problem by identifying
the general character of the problem and
the process used
Frequently ask the student to use the
Frequently evaluate or have the student
self-evaluate the use of a competency in
all its complexity
Recognize the impact of the following
skills: to define the scope of problems and
resolve them, a capacity for immediate
action, stable and defined in relation to a
given standard
Page 108 de 383
Characteristics
Explanation
Impact on planning
13- A competency is a CAPACITY FOR A competency is a lasting capacity for effective —
action; this capacity to act is not transitory, i.e. here
STABILITY OF ACTION.
today and gone tomorrow. All competencies require
a stability of performance. Stability is the result of a
procedural quality and rests on organized conceptual
models.
Frequently ask the student to use the
competency in all its complexity .
14- A competency is a FINAL TRAINING A competency is a training objective that expresses —
the desired result at the end of a training period; the
OBJECTIVE.
length of time for training is based on the complexity —
of the competency, the program format and resulting
“learning activities”.
Evaluate mainly in a formative way
during the learning process.
Evaluate in a summative way, as much as
possible at the end of the cycle or learning
process.
Page 109 de 383
Learning tool 3.E
Characteristics of competencies and
their impact on the evaluation of learning44
Characteristics
1. A competency is a
LEARNING OBJECTIVE
2. A competency is
MULTIDIMENSIONAL
POTENTIAL FOR
ACTION
Impact on the evaluation of learning
Ensure that the summative evaluation deals mainly with the
competency and its use by the student.
Present the student with complete and global tasks connected to each
field.
Plan teaching, learning and evaluation activities relative to the three
indicators: results of the action, the process used and how the student
describes his process and the results of his action.
Frequently evaluate, or have the student self-evaluate the use of the
competency in all its complexity.
Guide the student to describe and evaluate his problem resolution
process.
4. A competency is defined
in relation to a known
threshold, A STANDARD
Provide students with evaluation grids that have precise standards of
performance.
5. A competency is an
Present students with complex tasks as close to reality as possible
(“authentic” situations).
ABILITY LINKED REAL
LIFE ACTIVITY.
6. A competency is an
INTEGRATED TOTALITY
of skills.
Create teaching and learning activities that target the development of
such a structure within the student.
7. A competency is a skill
acquired as a result of
EXPERIENCE.
Frequently ask the student to use the competency in all its complexity.
8. A competency relies on
PERTINENT knowledge.
Create teaching, learning and evaluation activities that focus mainly on
these essential resources.
9. A competency is the
ability TO DEFINE THE
SCOPE OF and RESOLVE
Gradually lead the student to self-evaluate his performance.
PROBLEMS
10. A competency is related to Guide the student to reflect on and describe the structure of the
resources that make up the competency.
a SPECIFIC FIELD of
action.
44
Translated from Pierre Deshaies, Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier, “La conception de la compétence” Recueil intégrateur,
Section I : Une vision intégrée de la formation au collégial, (à paraître), Sherbrooke, regroupement des collèges Performa,
2003.
Page 110 de 383
CAPACITY FOR
IMMEDIATE ACTION.
CAPACITY FOR
EFFECTIVE ACTION.
Frequently evaluate, or have the student self-evaluate the use of a
competency in all its complexity.
Recognize the impact of the following skills: to define the scope of
problems and resolve them (7), a capacity for immediate (9) and stable
(11) action, and a capacity defined according to a standard (12).
Frequently ask the student to use the competency in all its complexity.
CAPACITY FOR STABILITY
OF ACTION.
14. A competency is a FINAL
LEARNING OBJECTIVE.
Evaluate mainly in a formative way during the learning process.
Evaluate in a summative way, as much as possible, at the end of the
cycle or learning process.
Page 111 de 383
Learning tool 3.F
Principles connected to the evaluation of a competency 45
1- Ensure the student has access to formative —
evaluations.
A quality formative evaluation must allow the
—
student to position himself in relation to the
targeted objective, to recognize his learning
difficulties, to undertake remedial activities —
adapted to his learning difficulty(ies) and to
receive feedback on these activities.
Since a competency develops gradually, it is
necessary to allow for the right to err during
the learning process.
Learning requires supervision and support to
be of value.
The summative evaluation should only be
used at the end of the learning process or at
the latest possible moment.
The summative evaluation of learning must be
preceded by a formative evaluation(s).
2- The evaluation of learning is an integral part of —
the pedagogical planning process for a
course.
In a coherent process, learning objectives
(competencies and objectives) determine
learning and teaching strategies; in turn, these
components influence evaluation methods
(diagnostic, formative and summative) and the
evaluation tools used.
3- The evaluation of learning must lie within the
scope of programs at collegial level and respect
pre-established objectives and standards
developed at the ministerial level for each
competency.
(See principle 5)
45
The evaluation process includes three types of
evaluations: diagnostic, formative and
summative. Each must be used within a
coherent whole as each has its own specific
function, yet all three are nonetheless
complementary and necessary for an
evaluation to be complete. These three types
of evaluations differ only in their objective,
therefore evaluation tools should be of
comparable value and evaluation grids should
be equivalent or identical.
_ The objects of evaluation and the criteria to
gauge this evaluation do not depend on
teachers’ personal choices but rather on
ministerial regulations. The objectives and
standards are the same across the network and
ensure a certain equivalence of training as
well as fairness and consistency in
evaluations.
(See principle 8)
Translated from a table developed by Pierre Deshaies, educational advisor at Collège de Shawinigan within the framework
of PIEA (Politique institutionnelle d’évaluation des apprentissages).
Page 112 de 383
4- Considering the integrating, total and final —
character of a competency as a learning
objective, the final evaluation of learning
within a course consists in a final examination
on the statement of competency for the course
(or final integration objective if the course
targets more than one competency, or if a —
competency is developed in more than one
course).
The final test must count for a large percentage
of the weighting.
—
—
—
5- The final test relates to the terms of —
competency stated for the course, evaluated
according to all the performance criteria of
the ministerial edict (or criteria connected to
the final integration goal when a course targets
more than one competency or a competency is
developed in more than one course).
—
The summative evaluation must rely on exact
and criteria-based measurements of learning.
It is necessary to communicate these criteria to
students before the evaluation, ideally at the
start of the learning process.
(See principle 3)
The tradition of continuous evaluation can
give a student a passing grade in a course
without having demonstrated mastery of the
competency; the trend towards evaluations
that test learning at the end of the course
(final) is preferable.
Ideally, the final test should count for 100 %.
However, it is also necessary to recognize the
overall learning within the course (global). To
support and evaluate the integration of
learning during the course (integrative):
mastery of a competency is more than the sum
of cumulative knowledge.
A grade of 60% or more could be considered
sufficient on the final test (requirement) for
success in the course.
The minimal threshold must correspond to
what is expected for an entry-level technician
or student who is entering university.
The final test is an opportunity for learning.
The evaluation of learning has evolved from a
normative concept to one that is criteria-based
in which the student’s performance is
compared to pre-established criteria rather
than peer results.
Criteria should be classified in an evaluation
grid and communicated to students in advance
to allow them to better grasp what is expected
of them during evaluations and during the
learning process. Moreover, the use of a
precise evaluation grid facilitates teaching,
learning and the development of the capacity
for self-evaluation.
Page 113 de 383
6- The summative evaluation allows for the —
assigning of grades and/or the certification of
learning.
The summative evaluation can only refer to the
outcome of learning. Therefore, there can be
—
no summative evaluations for participation,
involvement and effort. Nor can the teacher
include course attendance in a summative
evaluation.
—
7- Moreover, a summative evaluation must be
individual because it measures, for each
student, the level of achievement of
performance necessary for success in the
course. Unless the ability to work in teams is
part of the targeted competency(ies) for the
course, it cannot be evaluated in a summative
manner.
8- In the case where a course is given to more
than one group during the same session (or by
more than one teacher), the objectives are
common and the content conforms to the
course framework.
In the case of courses given to more than one
group during the same session (or by more than
one teacher), standards and rules governing
evaluations are common and a single
marking grid is used.
—
—
The summative evaluation is neither to
punish nor to reward. Its purpose is to
validate what the student can do effectively
and to certify his mastery of a competency at
the end of the learning cycle.
The summative evaluation exclusively
measures the achievement of a targeted
competency. Participation, involvement and
effort can however be assessed in a formative
evaluation.
In rare instances, should the learning context
require it, course attendance can be considered
a prerequisite for admittance to the exam.
The product of learning is individual.
Learning is defined within the individual
based on what he already knows and new
connections that he has personally
constructed.
Teamwork and cooperative learning are
excellent learning activities; they must allow
for a fair and equitable evaluation of
individual performance.
Conformity with the course framework and
with common standards of evaluation ensures
equivalence and equity of the training and
evaluations for each course. Course
framework plan: in conformity with local
educational program specifications and the
graduate profile, the overall course outline is
approved by a team of teachers and used as a
framework in course planning. “Unique
marking grid”: marking grid prepared by all
teachers giving the same course and used to
evaluate all students taking this course in the
same session (and from one session to another
if possible).
Page 114 de 383
Learning tool 3.G
The authentic evaluation46
Do multiple-choice tests really evaluate student understanding? Many educators believe that there is a
more effective evaluation alternative, with tests that do not focus entirely on memorization.
Instead, they ask students to demonstrate the skills and concepts they have learned. This strategy is called
authentic evaluation.
What is authentic evaluation?
Authentic evaluation is designed to assess student abilities in 'real-world' contexts. In other words,
students learn how to apply their skills in authentic tasks and projects.
Authentic evaluation focuses on the students’:
— analytical skills;
— ability to integrate what they learn;
— ability to work in collaboration;
— written and oral communication skills.
The authentic evaluation places as much value on the learning process as on the finished product. In
authentic evaluations, students:
— do science experiments;
— conduct research;
— write reports and texts;
— read and interpret literature;
— resolve problems that have applications in the real world.
Why use authentic evaluation methods in the classroom?
Many teachers are dissatisfied with using only traditional testing methods to administer tests and believe
students should practice higher-order thinking skills. These educators assert that students must be
prepared to do more than memorize information and use algorithms to solve simple problems in a
mechanical fashion.
How to use authentic evaluation in the classroom
Authentic assessment utilizes performance sampling (learning activities that encourage students to use
higher-order thinking skills).
There are five major types of performance sampling:
1- Performance Assessment
Performance assessments test student ability to use skills in a variety of authentic contexts. They
frequently require students to work collaboratively and to apply skills and concepts to solve complex
problems.
Short- and long-term tasks include activities such as:
46
Translated from Pearson Education Development Group. [http://www.teachervision.fen.com/page/4911.html]
Page 115 de 383
— writing, revising, and presenting a report to the class;
— conducting a week-long science experiment and analyzing the results;
— working within a team to prepare a classroom debate.
2- Short Investigations
Many teachers use short investigations to assess how well students have mastered basic concepts and
skills. Most short investigations begin with a stimulus like a math problem, cartoon, map or a short
excerpt from a story or text. The teacher may ask students to interpret, describe, calculate, explain and
predict. These investigations may use multiple-choice questions. The goal is to assess how well the
student establishes relationships between concepts.
3- Open-response Questions
Open-response questions require that students answer with:
— a brief written or oral answer;
— a mathematical solution;
— a drawing;
— a diagram, chart or graph.
4- Portfolios
A portfolio documents learning over time. This long-term perspective accounts for student improvement
and teaches students the value of self-evaluation, editing, and revision. A student portfolio can include:
— a personal journal;
— peer-evaluations;
— personal artwork, diagrams, charts and graphs;
— individual work or group reports;
— student notes and outlines;
— rough drafts and final copy.
5- Self-evaluation
Self-evaluation requires that students evaluate their own participation, process and products. Students
give written or oral responses to questions such as:
— What was the most difficult part of this project for you?
— What do you think you should do next? If you could do this task again, what would you do
differently?
— What did you learn from this project?
Authentic evaluations succeed when students know what teachers expect. For this reason, teachers
should always clearly define standards and expectations at the beginning of the project. Students must
be given the evaluation grid before the start of the project.
Authentic assessment emphasizes process and performance; it encourages students to develop criticalthinking skills.
Page 116 de 383
Learning tool 3.H
Tension between traditional and modern ways of thinking
Our concept on the evaluation of learning is undergoing an in depth renewal at collegial level,
marked by changes to the objectives of learning, i.e. competencies. Various trends and
approaches are impacting the Québec collegial network. Our main concerns include issues
pertaining to the relevance and quality of education as well as to academic success: the complete
development of the individual, a program perspective, support given to learning and a
competency centered approach.
Whether the evaluation of learning is done at the course or program level, we are always
proceeding in a singular context, one that is different from all other contexts, despite the fact that
there may be many similarities between evaluation situations. Every case is particular to a certain
extent.
Depending on the situation, the factors listed below contribute to this singularity (and the list is
probably not exhaustive):
— the rules of the game relative to the evaluation of learning used within an institution, a
program, a department;
— the nature of the program, course or discipline;
— the concepts, competency and experience of the teacher or the team that designs and
carries out the evaluation.
We must not lose sight of this singularity when we review evaluation methods. Even though it
may be pertinent and useful to have guiding principles and standard tools, it is an illusion to think
that the concept of the evaluation of learning can be reduced to a simple application of these
tools. We are always dealing with a problem solving situation where the best way to proceed
does not depend on automatic functioning or algorithms.”47
“The adoption of a new perspective creates ambiguity and uncertainty. There are many factors
that make bringing changes to evaluation practices a demanding and delicate issue. We can
expect various tensions, mentioned by the Commission for UNESCO as being at the heart of 21st
century angst (1995, p. 3 and 4), to also impact the world of education: tension between
traditional and modern ways of thinking, between short-term and long-term, between the singular
and the universal, between local and global, between inevitable competition and the desire for
equity.
Each of these tensions impacts the two groups of participants – teachers and students – involved
in the dynamics of implemented changes or within the evaluation of the learning process itself.
— Tension between traditional and modern ways of thinking
The tradition of current practices, which teachers and students alike are familiar
with, versus modern ways of thinking, is manifested as a paradigm shift in the
evaluation of learning, through changes in the rules of the game at the collegial
level.
— Tension between short-term and long-term
47
Translated from Cécile D’Amour and Groupe de travail at Performa, L’évaluation des apprentissages au
collégial : des cours au programme, 1996, Fascicule I. La problématique, p. 59.
Page 117 de 383
Short term, which tempts us to respond quickly to new requirements versus long
term, which is required for major changes to take root.
Short term, where daily student motivation is called into play versus long-term,
over which learning acquires its meaning.
— Tension between the singular and the universal
The singularity of each evaluation versus the universality of general principles
common to all situations.
A certain singularity in evaluation conditions and student’s work, a singularity
which can ensure a more accurate evaluation of competencies, versus
universality, which ensures greater reliability of the tools used and judgments
made.
— Tension between local and global
Local rules of the game for a team of teachers versus the global membership in
the same establishment, the same collegial network.
The local nature of specific, targeted learning versus the global nature of
multidimensional and integrated learning.
— Tension between inevitable competition and equity
Differences in teaching establishments — differences used for purposes of
distinction and competition — and concern for equity in the treatment of students
within the same program who attend different establishments.
Competition, which prevails upon entry into the labour market and during student
selection for admission to university programs, and the concern for equity that
must overshadow the evaluation of learning.
The attitude to adopt vis-à-vis this tension is one of mediation rather than favouring one side over
the other, mediation that can appear in certain circumstances as preferential for one approach over
another while still respecting both”.
Page 118 de 383
Document 3.A
1.
Study programs based on pedagogical objectives48
1.1
Definition
A study program generally targets a vast amount of knowledge, skills and components of social
development that students must acquire to function in life. This goal is generally translated into
“piecemeal disciplinary content described as pedagogical objectives i.e., teaching objectives that
are statements of intent defining the lasting changes that must take place within the individual in a
learning situation or subsequent to it.” (Legendre, 1993). Objectives are defined for the
disciplinary content and identify the expected student learning […]
Programs centered on objectives generally follow the same pattern: general objective ― final
objectives ― intermediate objectives. The characteristics of these programs are provided below.
1.2
Characteristics
When an approach is centered on the contents of a discipline that are external to the individual,
the objectives are generally specific to the subject matter; and, in principle, the acquisition of
knowledge and the development of skills is sequential. Some authors such as Newman (1988)
stress that this approach causes teachers concern with regard to covering the contents of the
discipline and results in the fragmentation of student learning. The cognitive aspect (knowledge
and skills) assumes greater importance than the emotional aspect (personal conduct).
A teaching objective inspired by behaviourism:
—
is external to the learner;
—
is predetermined and fixed;
—
fragments the contents of learning and postulates that the sum of the parts is equal to
the whole;
—
generally distinguishes learning according to cognitive (intellectual skills), affective
(attitudes) and psychomotor (psychomotor skills) areas;
—
generally views the non-achievement of an objective as an indication of the absence in
the student of the targeted learning.
The objective-based approach has had positive effects; it has undoubtedly brought greater
coherence to the education system. It should be kept in mind that its implementation was marked
by a behaviourist perspective.
1.3
Evaluation in an objective-based program
When we are predominantly focused on the contents of a discipline, we identify what the student
must know and be able to do in order to master the contents. Therefore we often resort to the
definition of a set of objectives said to be pedagogical because they are focused on the desired
student learning to be achieved. From this point of view, knowledge results from an
accumulation of specific skills (objectives) in a hierarchy dependent on the requirements of the
disciplinary content. The evaluation approach resulting from this paradigm deals with the
quantification of acquired knowledge by learners prioritized according to the requirements of the
Tiré de : Roland Louis, L’évaluation des apprentissages en classe : Théorie et pratique,
Éditions Études Vivantes, Montréal, 1999, p. 19-26.
48
Page 119 de 383
discipline. Consequently, the evaluation will generally be centered on objectives of a cognitive
nature connected to the discipline. It is what we call an evaluation centered on the contents of a
discipline. The evaluation of learning consists in validating the achievement of predefined
learning objectives that relate exclusively to disciplinary content.
Popham (1974), with his concept of expanded objectives, and Hively (1974), with his concept of
measurement dependent on the discipline, recommended these approaches in answer to criticism
of study programs based on operational objectives over thirty years ago. In Québec in the 1980’s,
a new trend emerged with objectives that were more global and therefore circumvented the
limitations of operational objectives. Despite these efforts, objectives whether specific or global,
remain tied to the content of a discipline. We have also seen pedagogical movements that
recommend an integration of subject matter, where the focus is on “transversal” skills such as
critical judgment and reasoning in order to break from a model linked exclusively to a teaching
discipline.
2.
Competency-based programs
2.1
A definition
A study program based on competencies is also a replacement solution for programs based on
objectives tied to disciplinary content. In a competency-based approach, the emphasis is not
placed on competencies that are external to the individual but rather on the integration by the
individual of knowledge (theoretical and practical), skills and attitudes necessary for the
satisfactory accomplishment of complex tasks that are meaningful for the student and needed in
his later adaptation to adult life. Several authors have clearly underlined the need to have these
new study programs rest on a cognitivist vision of competencies and have proposed definitions
that evoke complex skills (Barbès, 1990; Désilets and Brassard, 1994; Goulet, 1995c; Perrenoud,
1995).
According to the cognitivist perspective, competency is a state, an ability to act and not a
particular action. This state is linked to a structure of conceptual and methodological knowledge
as well as attitudes and values that allow a person to make assessments and to adapt his actions to
complex and varied situations. For Wodistsch (1977), a competency is a set of generic skills that
recur with frequency as a component in the successful accomplishment of a series of varied tasks
involving knowledge, skills and attitudes. Wiggins (1994, p. 219) goes a little further by defining
competency as a judgment that allows the student to adapt effectively to specific roles and
situations encountered in the adult world.
We define competency as a judgment in the choice and use of knowledge necessary to effectively
accomplish an action, by taking into account the given problem and the context in which the
action takes place. For us, competency is the result of a mobilization of declarative, procedural
and conditional knowledge used by the student to effectively accomplish an action that impacts
his environment and his adaptation to adult life. For example, we can observe the demonstration
of a competency in a student who, when faced with a problem in real life (school, family, etc), is
able to call upon the necessary knowledge (particular to the discipline, mathematics, French, etc.)
needed to find a solution and communicate it. He can also effectively implement and defend his
choice. Of course, competencies differ for students in primary and secondary school and students
in training for a profession (teacher, doctor, etc.). In the latter case, we speak of professional
competency relative to the reality of professional practices.
We believe that our vision of competency harmonizes with the socioconstructivist movement
where knowledge is constructed through interaction by the individual with his environment.
Moreover, for certain authors who also share this position:
Page 120 de 383
— learning is an active, constructive and gradual process during which the student integrates
material that was not part of his prior knowledge and creates new ideas and new
representations. (Gerlach, 1994; Smith and McGregor, 1992; Tardif, 1992);
— learning takes place within a social framework (communication and interaction) characterized
by the diversity of experience and knowledge of the various participants. (Gerlach, 1994).
2.2
Characteristics
Competency, as we understand it, has the following characteristics:
— comes from within;
— integrates knowledge, skills and attitudes;
— appears in situations or problems originating in real-life situations;
— the non-demonstration of a competency does not necessarily signal its absence, but rather
may be a sign that, for whatever reason, the context does not allow its implementation.
Competency calls upon three types of knowledge. They are:
Declarative knowledge (what?) is theoretical knowledge that refers to facts, principles and laws.
For example, knowledge of grammatical rules, chemical laws, mathematical formulas and the
physical resources of a region is declarative knowledge.
Procedural knowledge (how to?) is knowledge relating to how to carry out an action, the stages
and procedures that allow us to do so. Examples of procedural knowledge are implementing the
necessary stages for drafting an opinion paper, conducting a valid laboratory experiment and
writing a report using historical context to better understand an event.
Conditional knowledge (what to do? and how to proceed if...?) is knowledge referring to the
when, why and conditions under which to carry out an action or implement a strategy. For
example, when there is a problem to resolve, the student reads the stated problem then chooses
one strategy among several that seems to offer the best solution. Further on, we will see that
conditional knowledge is called upon when the evaluation of learning deals with a task in a
complex context or situation.
2.3
The integration of the three types of knowledge
Student judgment will therefore rely on the three types of knowledge needed to accomplish the
action and do so effectively based on the context of application. As our definition of
competency suggests, the teacher will not isolate the different types of knowledge, but will
simultaneously pay attention to:
— the integration of the three types of knowledge that allow the demonstration of the
competency;
— the transversal quality of this knowledge relative to the teaching disciplines;
— the exercise of student judgment in the effective accomplishment of a task.
Take for example the following competency: the ability to effectively communicate a proposed
problem solution to an audience.
This competency includes declarative knowledge (knowledge of the rules / stages of problem
resolution and communication, knowledge of audience characteristics, etc.), procedural
knowledge (implementation of stages, procedures for problem resolution and communication)
and conditional knowledge (selecting the best strategy to resolve a problem based on the available
information, the best communication strategy to use for this audience, etc.).
Page 121 de 383
This example enables us to observe the transversal nature of a competency, since it utilizes
knowledge and processes that are not specific to a given teaching discipline. Lastly, the student
must involve the use of his judgment for the effective accomplishment of the task.
2.4
Evaluation in a competency-based program
Accordingly, the logic that seems to guide an evaluation based on preset behaviour objectives
appears to differ from an evaluation that takes into account student judgment in the mobilization
of knowledge for the effective accomplishment of a task. Practices resulting from the use of predetermined objectives have familiarized us with evaluations that separate declarative knowledge
from procedural and conditional knowledge. For example, in a single exam we frequently
encounter questions that measure declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and sometimes
conditional knowledge in an isolated fashion. The number of correct answers is then seen as an
indication of the student’s level of integration of the three types of knowledge.
When we consider an evaluation based on competencies, it is necessary to be attentive to the
student’s mobilization of the three integrated types of knowledge in the realization of a task
(production or construction of knowledge). The effective accomplishment of the task will depend
on the student’s use of judgment.
2.4.1
Complex tasks enabling the resolution of a concrete problem
There is another characteristic that distinguishes objectives from competencies. Although an
objective generally arises directly from theoretical knowledge linked to disciplinary content,
competency for its part, originates in complex and practical tasks necessary for the
accomplishment of a role or function. The concepts contained in the discipline are still present;
however, they represent only one type of resource among others needed to accomplishment the
task. In other words, if the accomplishment of a task requires a given disciplinary knowledge, the
mastery of the latter is not necessarily indicative of the capacity to accomplish the task. The
evaluation of learning in a competency-based program will therefore focus on the
accomplishment of a variety of tasks that allow for an assessment of competency. As much as
possible, the tools necessary for competency assessment should relate to tasks that mimic real life
situations that students are likely to encounter in the school environment and beyond.
Since a competency is complex, evaluation tasks will have to identify the dimensions where this
complexity manifests itself, i.e., the multidimensional aspect of the competency. Recognizing this
complexity and multidimensionality guides our judgment on the development of competencies in
the learner. For example, certain dimensions of a competency may be present in the person being
evaluated, whereas other more complex ones may not yet be present.
2.4.2
The definition of the field of performance
Another important area of a competency-based evaluation is the definition of the field of
performance required to deduce the targeted competencies. Until now, the field to be measured
incorporated disciplinary content as well as components of taxonomy relating to the cognitive
field, such as Bloom’s taxonomy. Because the interest is now on complex performances that
reflect the integration of knowledge and the ability to perform tasks as effectively as possible,
such as resolving a meaningful problem, a definition must take all these components into
consideration. Schaefer and others (1992) stress that we must be careful in the conceptualization
and definition of performance fields to ensure the validity and usefulness of the evaluation.
Insofar as we believe that performance is complex to evaluate, that it involves student judgment
and that it can vary from one situation to another, responses should also vary from one individual
to another. In other words, there can be no predetermined response. The evaluator must use his
judgment to analyze and interpret the variety of responses given. At this point in time it becomes
necessary to define, in the context of the field of performances and in preparation for the
Page 122 de 383
evaluation, the dimensions of the critical attributes relating to the effectiveness of performances
to be observed (criteria, performance standards, rating grids, etc.).
One of the challenges in competency assessment is the development of criteria that clearly
represent meaningful and useful performance levels; levels that reflect the competency and
student development in acquiring that competency. This requires descriptive and precise criteria
for all levels of performance. In current practices, criteria are often defined outside the evaluated
task and are not shared with students. The criteria are often expressed as a percentage of a grade
or rating scale using terminology such as: mastery — masters to some degree — masters with
assistance — no mastery. In a competency-based evaluation, criteria must clearly establish
performance levels but must also be shared with students so the latter may position themselves
with regard to the task to be achieved. If this information is missing, students will probably not be
able to exercise the sound judgment required for the effective accomplishment of the task.
A final yet equally important area of concern relates to the energy and resources linked to the
development and implementation of a competency-based evaluation. Factors to take into
consideration include: the many tools (written tests, observation grids, portfolio, etc.) used to
measure the complexity of performance, the variety of support available for these tools (audiovisual equipment, examiners, markers, etc.), and the time needed to collect data and compile it.
In the following chapters, we will outline in greater detail, the evaluation model best suited for
evaluating competency development.
Page 123 de 383
Document 3.B
1. Basis
1.1 Context
1.2 Definition and goals of the evaluation in authentic situations
1.3 Measurement based on complex performances
1.3.1 Components of an evaluation in an authentic situation
Please note: this excerpt uses the original classification of Chapter 7 by Louis (1999),
although only Section 1 is shown here. The remainder of Chapter 7 includes:
2. Tools for authentic evaluations
2.1 Measurement based on specific tasks
2.2 The portfolio
3. Authentic evaluations: problems and solutions
3.1 The problem of reliable decisions
3.2 The problem related to extracurricular situations
We categorized evaluation practices according to three approaches: psycho-educative approach,
objective-based approach and “ecological” approach. The authentic evaluation can be considered
as a means to implement the ecological approach that focuses on developing individual
competencies that will allow a person to function more adequately in his immediate environment.
This chapter outlines in greater detail the basis of authentic evaluations and the tools that
accompany this evaluation model.
1. Basis
1.1
Context
Tests and exams currently in use have been the object of much criticism. On the one
hand, they were criticized for putting students in situations that generally demanded a
single answer (multiple choice, true or false, sentences to complete) or a known and
acceptable answer. According to the teacher or examiner, that does not necessarily
reflect the extracurricular reality for which the student is being prepared. On the other
hand these tests and exams have serious limitations when it comes to identifying
strategies and procedures the student used to arrive at the answer. For example, giving
a correct answer does not necessarily mean the student possesses the ability being
measured by the question: a correct answer may conceal poor understanding of the
subject and an incorrect answer does not provide information on the process the student
used or his level of learning because it does not explain how he arrived at his answer.
In spite of the educational and pedagogical limitations of these tools, teachers seem
inclined to teach based on the content of the tests, and students seem inclined to only
49
Translated from Roland Louis, L’évaluation des apprentissages en classe : Théorie et pratique, Éditions Études
Vivantes, Montréal, 1999, p. 77-82.
Page 124 de 383
learn what is evaluated on these tests (Doyle, 1983). In Quebec secondary schools, we
observe that most of the month of May is devoted to reviewing the MEQ’s and/or the
school board’s previous exams to help prepare students for final exams. This only
serves to confirm to students that teaching has one goal: to succeed on MEQ and/or
school board exams.
The concept of authentic evaluation was coined in 1989 by Grant Wiggins (1989), and
suggests a new way of evaluating learning.
1.2
Definition and goals of the authentic evaluation
For Wiggins (1993) and Hart (1993), an evaluation is authentic when it provides
students with tasks that:
—
are drawn from real life situations;
—
are meaningful and motivating for the student;
—
allow for the understanding or resolution of problems frequently encountered in
extracurricular life.
This evaluation relies in part on introducing students to tasks that call for the
integration of acquired knowledge. These tasks are considered complex. Contrary to
the examination model composed of independent questions that are unrelated to each
other or questions that measure bits and pieces of knowledge only, the authentic
evaluation measures all dimensions, both cognitive and affective that allow for
effective action. Remember that an objective-based evaluation uses measurements
linked to criteria, criterion-referenced-measurement (the criteria are the targeted
objectives) or linked to a domain, domain-referenced-measurement (the domain being
the various situations that questions for measuring a specific objective must refer to).
The authentic evaluation uses complex performance measurement tools.
Since both student and teacher recognize the importance of success in exams, one way
of modifying the situation is to use an evaluation that conforms to known principles of
learning and teaching. This is the first goal of an authentic evaluation.
We are aware that the use of tests and formal exams creates an artificial situation in the
classroom: the instructional relationship between teacher and student takes on a
different dimension the day of the exam. The teacher becomes the judge who sanctions
the student’s success or failure rather than one who helps the student with his
comprehension. Often, the test or exam deals with factual learning without validating
the transfer of this learning to concrete situations. Moreover, answers given by a
student to a set of questions like those found in standard tests and exams do not reflect
the depth of learning achieved. The evaluation should take into account actual
concerns that make the student active in his own learning process and that focus on the
process as well as on the product of learning. The evaluation should not impede the
instructional relationship between teacher and student. This is the second goal of an
authentic evaluation.
Today, thanks to the influence of cognitive psychology, evaluations seem to focus on
the way in which the learner processes information received from a complex
environment that is varied and changeable, in order to improve his functioning.
According to Glaser (1994), the design of evaluation tests and concepts based on the
traditional psychometric approach will be replaced by concepts of cognition, learning
and competency linked to cognitive psychology. Authors such as Wiggins (1993) Beck
(1991) and Shepard (1989) speak of authentic evaluations, i.e. an evaluation that should
Page 125 de 383
take into consideration the context and environment in which the person will use the
skills. Moreover, the evaluation of learning does not rely solely on one type of learning
tool but rather on a variety of tools to better grasp the multiple facets of learning. We
can then speak of performance-based assessment, an evaluation that requires the
student to demonstrate his ability to implement the knowledge, skills and necessary
attitudes in a real life context, (Linn, 1994; Millman, 1991; Quellmaz, 1991; Stiggins,
1994). The term performance is used here to mean effective accomplishment of a task
or an operation using multidimensional integrated knowledge (declarative, procedural
and conditional).
1.3
Measurement based on complex performances
The authentic evaluation calls for different tools than those currently used for tests and
exams. The authentic evaluation rests on the measurement of complex performances. It
is based on the student’s competency in implementing cognitive and metacognitive
strategies in varied contexts and situations that are required for the successful
accomplishment of a task or a set of tasks.
To the term “performance” we add the qualifier “complex” to indicate that the
measurement of the performance should involve declarative, procedural and
conditional knowledge at the same time. Traditional knowledge introduces the exercise
of student judgment in relation to the relevance and effectiveness of the action or
strategy being considered.
In fact, instead of having a whole set of exam questions relating to piecemeal
knowledge, a measurement based on complex performances requires that the student
integrate all three types of knowledge to effectively accomplish the task.
The accomplishment of the task can occur during class hours or outside the classroom.
When measuring complex performances, the task, requires that the student develop or
construct his own response and consequently, there is no single answer expected by the
teacher or designer of the task.
In theory, experts judge the evaluation of the accomplishment level for a task. Thus
there is a need to clearly identify the evaluation criteria for the performances being
observed.
Even if an authentic evaluation calls for measurements based on performance, it is
important to emphasize that a measurement based on complex performances does not
automatically constitute an authentic evaluation.
For example: When the school board or the ministère de l’Éducation du Québec
administers a written exam to students, allows two hours for completion, and requires a
concrete production on the part of the student (written text) that will be corrected by
experts (expert judgment) who rate the work on specific criteria, we can consider this
exam to be a measurement of performance. However, it does not necessarily meet the
requirements for authenticity: the duration may or may not respect realistic time
frames for the drafting of such a text, the student cannot take advantage of advice from
his teacher and cannot consult books such as the dictionary; the student may draft the
text without having any real recipient in mind; or he may not be aware of the marking
criteria used by those grading the exams, etc.
Thus, Wiggins (1993) suggests a set of criteria that would allow us to determine if an
evaluation task is truly authentic. Among these criteria are the ones we defined earlier
and others we have summarized below:
Page 126 de 383
—
The tasks require the student to construct or produce new knowledge and new
work.
—
The tasks lead to interactions between students and peers (collaboration), between
students and examiners. Since the student must justify certain answers and obtain
additional information to effectively complete the task, the examiner is a source
of information and external feedback allowing the student to adjust the quality of
his work.
—
The tasks allow the student a certain amount of control over actions leading to
their accomplishment. For example, in the case of a written production, the
student will be able to choose the subject and the way in which he wants to
approach it.
—
The tasks must contain the components necessary to motivate the student to go
beyond the goal of just getting a good grade.
Obviously, an authentic evaluation cannot keep track simultaneously of all the criteria
listed here. It is thus essential that the teacher or person evaluating, be specific with
regard to authentic criteria that are considered important for the evaluation situation.
1.3.1
Elements of an evaluation task in an authentic situation
Popham (1998) reports that specialists in performance measurement list three
components that characterize this measurement: multiplicity of performance
dimensions, predefined performance evaluation criteria and the use of expert
judgment.
—
Multiplicity of performance dimensions
The measurement refers to the multiple dimensions of a given
competency.
For example, the student competency in communicating can be measured
using the following dimensions: clarity of ideas, speech adapted to the
audience, the varied use of communication means, etc.
—
Predefined performance evaluation criteria
For each dimension, a performance rating scale is produced for the student and
shared with him.
For example, for the dimension clarity of ideas (see above), the rating scale
could be defined as:
The student communicates the key idea of the message clearly and
effectively and establishes a link between main and secondary
ideas.
4
The student communicates the key idea of the message and
some secondary ideas.
3
The student provides important information, but the ideas are
not well structured.
2
The student provides some information without emphasizing
the key idea.
1
Page 127 de 383
And the secondary concepts of the message.
—
The judgment of experts
Unlike situations where a computer can be used to correct student answers or grids that do not
require the judgment of experts, a measurement based on complex performances relies on the
judgment of experts. The teacher is thus considered as a possible expert. From this perspective,
the measurement can be compared to a sporting event where experts in the field judge the
performance of an athlete.
Page 128 de 383
Chapter 4
Definitions and policies relative to the evaluation
of learning
Before deciding how to evaluate learning, it is necessary to have a clear picture of what we are
dealing with. It is useful to understand not only the nature of the evaluation but also how it
functions and its impact within the educational system.
To begin with, let us examine the nature of evaluation and identify the relationships and
distinctive features between evaluation, judgment and measurement. We will then look at the
various functions of the evaluation of learning and the people who benefit from its practical use.
The evaluation of student learning is an operation that consists primarily in making a judgment
(or, if viewed in the context of support for learning, as an attestation or diagnostic tool) on the
learning of a student. This conclusion is arrived at through deduction and is based on data
provided by indicators and interpreted using benchmarks (evaluation criteria, requirements, scale,
etc.).
The evaluation of learning consists therefore primarily in a judgment based on inference. It
cannot be reduced to an algorithm nor be wholly objective. An evaluation is different from a
measurement. A measurement is the collection of quantitative data that can be used, on occasion,
as the basis for a judgment.
The evaluation of learning involves many people — those who evaluate and those whose learning
is evaluated — and calls into play relational and affective dimensions that must be taken into
consideration.
To grasp the nature of the evaluation of learning, we must remember what evaluations and
learning are, and also that we are referring to the learning of people, of students. The term
“evaluation” (like measurement, judgment, learning and integration) designates both the
operation and its result.
If we view the evaluation as an operation, we can identify the following fundamental
characteristics taken from the many definitions of the terms “evaluation” and “to evaluate”.
__ evaluation is directed towards a goal, it leads to a decision;
— evaluation deals with an object;
— evaluation is primarily about assessment and judgment;
— judgment is based on data;
— judgment is made using benchmarks (in particular, evaluation criteria).
To fully understand the evaluation, it is essential to make the distinction between “evaluation”
and “measurement”. According to the Commission de terminologie de l’éducation du Québec :
“Evaluation has a broader meaning than measurement. An evaluation includes qualitative and
quantitative descriptions of behaviour as well as value judgments on their desirability.
“(C.T.E.Q., 1988, in Legendre, 1993, p. 574), whereas measurement consists in “collecting
results and other indices for a quantitative analysis of student knowledge, abilities and skills .”
(Legendre, 1993, p. 831).
As noted by Legendre (p. 574), “measurement relates to the collection and processing of
information, whereas evaluation is a judgment based on this information”.
Page 129 de 383
Chapter Synopsis:
Activity 4 :
Definition and policies which guide the evaluation of
learning
Activity 4.1 :
Definition
Activity 4.2 :
Policy
Learning tools :
Learning tool 4.A :
A definition of the evaluation of learning
Learning tool 4.B :
Guiding principles for the evaluation of learning
Learning tool 4.C :
Definitions applicable to the evaluation of learning
Learning tool 4.D :
Comparing three types of evaluations
Learning tool 4.E :
Principles and rules that govern my actions
Document :
Document 4. A :
“Principles and policies that guide the evaluation of
learning”
Supporting documentation
Document 2.C :
Page 130 de 383
Activity 4
Definition and policies that guide the evaluation of learning
Heading
Definition and policies that guide the evaluation of learning
Objectives
To define policies prior to the planning and implementation of learning
evaluations.
To validate personal practices in light of these principles.
Description
To agree on definitions that are essential for understanding the proposed
framework.
The central aspect of this activity relates to principles and policies that guide
the evaluation of learning.
To acknowledge the policies that guide the implementation process for the
Lastly, to discuss the statements themselves to integrate, adapt or replace
them. The purpose of this exercise is to support the policies that guide
personal practices and identify emotions connected to them.
Unfolding
Activity 4.1
Definitions
A. Individually, draft a definition of the evaluation of learning.
B. Presentation of personal definitions and validation using the definition
found in learning tool 4.A “A definition of the evaluation of learning”.
C. Review of principles and policies using learning tool 4.B “Guiding
principles and policies. Personal reactions.
D. Presentation and discussion on definitions and types of evaluation: the
diagnostic evaluation, the formative evaluation and the summative
evaluation using the following documents:
- Learning tool 4.C “Definitions applicable to the evaluation of
learning”;
- Learning tool 4.D “Comparing three types of evaluations”
Page 131 de 383
Activity 4.2
Policies
E. Creation of teams of 4 to 6 people. Each team can choose to discuss the
questions in the order given or those that are of concern to them, using
learning tool 4.E ”Principles and rules that govern my actions”.
F. To acknowledge the proposed principles and policies and comment on
them by accepting, modifying or replacing them.
G. To identify reservations, solicit questions, concerns, agreement or
disagreement on each principle. If there is no consensus within the team,
make note of various options and their basis.
H. To evaluate the relevance and the coherence of principles.
I.
Moderator’s role
To evaluate the possible impact of principles adopted in our personal
practice.
To create a climate favourable to reflection.
To openly express personal convictions.
To support interaction with other participants.
To identify the principles and policies that govern learning evaluation
practices in our lives.
Pedagogical
material
Learning tool 4.A: A definition of the evaluation of learning
Learning tool 4.B: Guiding principles for the evaluation of learning
Learning tool 4.C: Definitions applicable to the evaluation of learning
Learning tool 4.D: Comparing three types of evaluations
Learning tool 4.E: Principles and rules that govern my actions
Document 4.A :
Principles and policies that guide the evaluation of learning
Support
documentation
Document 2.C :
Approximate
duration
Activity 4.1:
2 hours
Activity 4.2:
4 hours
Page 132 de 383
Learning tool 4.A
A definition of the evaluation of learning50
“Tis with our judments as with our watches, none go just alike,
yet each believes his own.”
Alexander Pope
The evaluation of learning is primarily:
— a judgment
— made by evaluators
— on the leaning of students
— through inference
— based on information relative to indicators
— using benchmarks (typical criteria, requirements, productions, etc.)
— to enlighten decisions
— relative to the learning process and its results.
Every evaluation of learning comprises three separate stages:
1. collection of raw data;
2. analysis and interpretation of data:
a. for the purpose of supporting learning:
assessment, diagnosis and judgment,
b. for the purpose of attesting to learning:
measurement of performance and judgment on learning;
recording of results as grades or other format;
3. follow-up after judgment: communication, decisions and actions.
Based on the various results, a final judgment is made to establish a student’s level of mastery relative to
the targeted learning (of a course or a program).
To proceed to the evaluation of learning, there must be:
1. an identification of the learning to be evaluated;
2. a selection of indicators that constitute (as per our judgment) demonstration of this learning;
3. identification of the evaluation criteria (learning qualities);
4. data collected on these indicators through student observation;
5. the use of evaluation criteria to analyze the data;
6. conclusions through inference, on the level of mastery of the underlying learning.51
50
51
Translated from Cécile D’Amour, L’évaluation des apprentissages au collégial : du cours au programme, Fascicule II.
Cadre de référence. Première partie : Les questions préalables, première édition, Performa collégial, April 1996, p. 26.
Page 133 de 383
What characterizes learning
The terms “learning” and “evaluation” indicate both a process and a result. When we speak of learning
and evaluation, we are generally referring to results. The concept we have of the nature of these results
is in keeping with the concept we have of the process used to achieve the results.
At collegial level, the learning we want to evaluate is:
1.
the result of a process
— this is true of all learning;
2.
a process that is directed by goals
— this is true of all conscious and voluntary learning;
— the goals are those of the educational system and those of the student; they are seldom in total
agreement; the system goals are more clearly defined;
3.
a process that is characteristic of the learner
4.
a process that is supported by pedagogical and didactic interventions
— this is true of all learning except self-learning;
5.
results that are characteristic of the person who guided the learning process
6.
results that are mainly abstract, internal, and not directly accessible or completely observable.
What characterizes the evaluation of learning
Every evaluation is affected by the characteristics of the object to be evaluated: requirements, difficulties
and methods used may vary to a certain extent, according to the object being evaluated. For example, to
evaluate an ability, an approach, an intellectual process, to assess a system of knowledge, to evaluate a
material object and to evaluate a social behaviour are operations that, although they are similar, present
major differences.
The operation of “evaluating learning” will share commonalities with all evaluations but it will also have
characteristics of the object being evaluated, given that the object is the result of learning. Depending on
the learning, the evaluation of learning can be characterized by a number of traits that are provided in the
following table.
Page 134 de 383
Evaluation of learning characteristics based on the nature of learning52
Because...
Evaluation of learning is:
i. Because learning is the result of a
process,
the evaluation of learning is used to attest to results
of the process and to support its unfolding.
ii. Because the process is characteristic of
the learner,
the evaluation is used to support the learning process
and must help the learner increase his mastery of the
process.
iii. Because learning is the result of a
process,
the evaluation that attests to results should not be
given until the time allocated for training is over.
iv. Because the learning process is based on
precise targets,
the evaluation judgment is made by comparing the
learning achieved with the targeted learning.
v. Because in an academic environment,
the learning process is directed and
supported by interventions,
the evaluation accurately targets clear learning
objectives that have been effectively supported by
pedagogical and didactic interventions.
vi. Because learning results are characteristic
of the individual,
the evaluation judgment accurately reflects the level
of mastery of each individual relative to the targeted
learning.
vii. Because learning is a reality that is not
directly accessible nor observable (in all
its complexity),
the evaluation judgment is made through inference
and based on indicators.
52
Page 135 de 383
Learning tool 4.B
Guiding principles and rules53
The establishment of principles (personal conduct) is useful in directing the process and for maintaining
a critical eye.
A.
B.
C.
D.
The evaluation of learning is in the spirit of collective choices
-
an action in keeping with collective choices;
-
a practice marked by the dynamics of a dialogue between departments, programs.
The evaluation of learning is carried out in a professional manner
-
a practice based on a frame of reference;
-
consistency between individual and collective practices;
-
respect of ethical requirements.
The evaluation of learning supports learning while attesting to the learning achieved
-
adequate formative-summative coordination;
-
importance of role played by formative and diagnostic evaluations.
The summative evaluation must be fair and equitable and perceived as such.
The summative evaluation must be fair and equitable
The term “fair” implies an evaluation that is both just and accurate. A fair and equitable
evaluation fulfills three requirements: justice, accuracy and equity.
Justice means the absence of arbitrary decisions, in conformity with:
-
agreement on lines of conduct, suitable rules;
-
right of recourse in case someone perceives the evaluation as either unfair or not equitable.
Accuracy is the quality of proper targeting, of assigning the rightful and exact value:
-
to evaluate effectively what one seeks to evaluate (validation);
-
to evaluate the object of evaluation with accuracy (reliability);
-
to judge based on a sufficient amount of data.
Equity means the judgment is impartial and treats all individuals equally:
-
the process of evaluation is free of discrimination, at all levels;
- the process of judgment is written out, illustrated and executed in a manner that ensures the
greatest possible objectivity, impartiality and stability;
- measures are taken to ensure equivalence as much as possible in the evaluation from one
classroom-group to another, from one teacher to another.
53
Translated from Cécile D’Amour et Groupe de recherche à Performa, “Une évaluation des apprentissages marquée par le
nouveau paradigme”, L’évaluation des apprentissages au collégial : du cours au programme, Fascicule II. Cadre de
référence. Section D, première édition, Performa collégial, p. 65-85, 1996.
Page 136 de 383
The summative evaluation must be perceived as such
The rules for evaluations, the benchmarks used for judgment (evaluation criteria, minimum
requirements, levels of mastery, typical productions, etc.) and the process must be understood by
those who will be evaluated (transparency).
E.
The formative evaluation is lenient and favourable to the development of student autonomy
The teacher adopts an attitude of trainer: coaching, showing empathy, encouraging progress,
identifying problems, contributing to the diagnosis and the evaluation as well as the identification
and implementation of remedial measures (student preparation throughout the program).
Formative evaluation activities are designed so the student develops the ability to adjust actions
and learning autonomously, thanks to feedback received (development of autonomy).
Formative activities are designed so the student develops his ability to self-evaluate and his
capacity for metacognition (development of autonomy).
F.
The evaluation of learning is carried out with pertinent and exact methodology that keeps
track of evaluation methods (collection of data, interpretation and judgment) as well as measures
ensuring the quality of the evaluation.
Evaluation methods are adapted to the nature of the learning to be evaluated.
Evaluation methods are adapted to the function of the evaluation (support or certification) and its
requirements.
Methods ensure the quality of the evaluation (guarantee validity, reliability and equivalence).
The choice and use of methods and tools are marked by a stringent respect for proper procedures and
conditions of use.
Page 137 de 383
Four rules on which to base the search for fairness
For a process to be fair, it must respect rules deemed appropriate by those who use the process. These
rules can vary from one community to another and even within the same group from one era to another;
they are a function of the concepts concerning the process in question and the very notion of fairness.
Given the understanding we have of the nature and functions of the evaluation of learning and the
decision made to include the evaluation of learning as part of the new emerging perspectives in the field,
it seems to us that the search for fairness in the evaluation of learning rests on four rules:
Rule 1
The evaluation of learning objects and methods, must be consistent with the orientation (objectives) and
the reality of learning (teaching and learning activities).
Coherence in evaluation-training
Rule 2
The summative evaluation judgment must not be rendered before the end of the training period (that
corresponds to the segment of education— course or programs — required for attestation); the result of
the evaluation must reflect the degree of mastery achieved at the end of the process.
Respect of the final nature of the summative evaluation
Rule 3
Within the framework of the summative evaluation, student learning must be evaluated relative to
expected (pre-defined).learning results
Use of expected results for comparative purposes (criteria-based evaluation)
Rule 4
Results of the evaluation of learning must be characteristic of the student; the indicators used must allow
for a judgment on the acquisitions of each individual.
Respect for the individual character of learning
Page 138 de 383
Learning tool 4.C
Definitions applicable
to the evaluation of learning54
Measurement
Activity consisting in collecting results and other data for quantitative
and/or qualitative descriptions of performances and student acquisitions
(knowledge, abilities, skills, attitudes, values).
First stage in the process of the evaluation of learning.
Evaluation
Activity that analyzes and interprets results and other measurement data
to make a qualitative or quantitative judgment on student performances
or acquisitions (knowledge, abilities, skills, attitudes, values).
The purpose of this activity is to make the best decision possible relative
to the support and certification of student learning.
Second and third stages in the process of the evaluation of learning.
Normative evaluation
Evaluation in which student performance is compared to that of a
reference group using the same measurement tool. (Legendre, 1988)
Normative interpretation
The interpretation of results is considered normative when it is compared
to group results. For example, Annie can jump 1.10 m. She is first in
her class.
Criteria-based evaluation Evaluation in which the performance of a subject is judged using
benchmarks and criteria for success identified within targeted objectives,
and independent of other performances.(Legendre, 1988)
Criteria-based
The interpretation is criteria-based when the results are compared to
interpretation
criteria. For example, Peter can jump 1.20 m. The criteria for success
for this student is set at 1.25. Therefore the objective was not reached.
54
Translated from Pierre Deshaies, Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier, “Les procédures d’élaboration d’une épreuve
d’évaluation”, Recueil intégrateur, Section IV : L’évaluation des apprentissages au collégial, (not yet in print), Sherbrooke,
regroupement des collèges Performa, 2003.
Page 139 de 383
to the evaluation of learning (cont’d)
Continuous evaluation
Cumulative process of grading or reporting spread over a pre-determined
period of time (learning activity, session, year) after which a final grade
is assigned.
(Pôle de l’Est, 1996)
Diagnostic evaluation
Intervention carried out at the beginning of a course to identify the level
of mastery of previously acquired skills to achieve targeted learning in a
specific course.
Formative evaluation
Evaluation of one or more learning sections a learning sequence during
the course of teaching and learning. The essential function is the
regulation of learning. It provides feedback so the student can progress
in his learning through remedial activities; it allows the teacher to
identify activities for the pursuit of teaching and student supervision
required. (Pôle de l’Est, 1996)
Summative evaluation
Evaluation carried out at the end of a course or learning sequence that is
consistent and meaningful. The essential function is the validation of
learning and student certification, a verdict for success or a grade
indicating failure.
Object of evaluation
Learning (knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes) evaluated to support
the learning process or validate acquired student learning . The objects
of evaluation are based on learning required within the program or the
course.
(D’Amour et autres, Fascicule II, p. 55, 1996)
Page 140 de 383
Object of the summative
evaluation
Learning that is considered sufficiently important to warrant official
certification at the end of the course or program. In a competency-based
approach, this is fundamental and integrative learning. The certification
of level of mastery of learning corresponds to:
— the targeted goals and learning objectives (cf. ministerial
specifications, exit profile, final integration objective or final
integration objectives for each course, etc.);
— the contribution they make in preparing for subsequent stages of
learning. (cf. stage within the course and subsequent courses).
Object of the formative
evaluation
Learning that the teacher or teaching group feel is useful in supporting
the process. This can include:
— all learning connected to ojects of the summative evaluation (ex.:
intermediate, specific, one-dimensional learning, etc.);
— learning that is seen in more than just one course and the object of a
summative evaluation in a subsequent course;
— learning that is not the object of a summative evaluation (ex. : prior
knowledge to be consolidated; learning relative to basic education,
an educational project at college, the exit profile for a program and
learning that is not included in official objectives).
(D’Amour et autres, Fascicule II, p. 53 et 54, 1996)
Page 141 de 383
Indicator
An indicator is a demonstration, action or gesture that is directly
observable and allows for an evaluation of an objective that is not
directly observable. (D’Amour et autres, Fascicule II, p. 55, 1996)
The selected indicators must allow for the observation of:
1.
actions, student behaviour during the achievement of a task, in a
situation (a process);
2.
work produced by the student following the achievement of a
task (production);
3.
words used (written and oral) by the student relative to his
knowledge and their integration into the achievement of the task
(speech).
Evaluation criteria 55
Evaluation criteria refer to the properties, characteristics and qualities
that assist in the judgment of various dimensions of the objects of
evaluation as revealed by indicators.
Minimum requirements
(Identification of
“STANDARDS” for
certification of learning)
Benchmarks and indicators chosen by the teacher or teaching group
to represent the minimum level of learning that must be achieved
by the student at a specific stage (ex.: in a course, at the end of
course and program, professional examinations, etc.).
Inference
Process by which the teacher or teaching group arrives at conclusions
relative to student learning, based on selected indicators.
The quality of the inference relies on the strength of the connection
between the indicator and the object, the time frame (more or less
removed from the term of the learning process) and the minimum
requirements for this stage of learning.
55
The term “criteria” is very general and can be used to indicate dimensions of the object and indicators. We use the term to
indicate “qualities” that are sought and will be used to render the evaluation judgment.
Page 142 de 383
Learning tool 4. D
Comparing three types of evaluation
Let us examine the formative evaluation, the summative evaluation and the diagnostic evaluation based
on four major characteristics:
— the time frame;
— the nature of the objects under evaluation;
— nature of the decisions resulting from the evaluation;
— the recipient of the judgment rendered.
Characteristics
Time frame
Nature of the objects
under observation
Diagnostic
evaluation
Formative evaluation
before learning begins; during learning; at the
end of a stage
at the beginning of a
sequence
regularly, in
continuous fashion
abilities or prior
knowledge
learning progress,
learning,
Summative
evaluation
after a learning has
occured;
at the end of a key
stage of learning
achievement of key
goals (larger units)
process and results
(mastery of
knowledge, skills, etc.)
(small units)
Nature of the
decisions
prior student
ongoing adjustments
orientation and
to teaching and
adjustment to teaching learning activities
activities
passing grade, diploma
Principal recipients
school administration;
teacher
school administration
student; teacher
Page 143 de 383
Types of evaluation
Included are eight index cards (p. 144-151) provided by Pierre Deshaies, educational advisor at
Collège Shawinigan, within the framework of MIPEC/PED-858/Outils de formation, version 2,
autumn 2002.
1.
Evaluating in a formative and summative way
Theoretical considerations
“Teachers cannot avoid feeling like traitors… either they betray the
trust of students who expect total complicity; or, they betray society
that expects them to always provide sound judgments.”. Albert
Jacquard
These concise remarks by A. Jacquard1 introduce us to this ongoing debate that brings into conflict
proponents of formative evaluations and those of summative evaluations, despite the fact that the nature
of both types of evaluation seems well defined.
The general consensus in the field is to consider the formative evaluation as a review of data provided
by the teacher during the learning process. The data validates the total or partial mastery of the objects
of learning; identifies what the student has understood, what he has not yet grasped and why he is
experiencing a particular difficulty in mastering these objects. According to Scallon2, formative
evaluation plays the role of regulator of student learning. Although it can be quantified (ex.: a
discriminating scale), the formative evaluation is generally descriptive and qualifies student training. It
is thus ideal for providing continuous feedback on learning achieved and “proactive” in that it can
identify any remedial learning required.
A similar consensus applies to the summative evaluation that is linked to the decision-making process at
the end of the training process, which it sanctions by either by granting or withholding success. As
expressed by Allal3, it is from this type of generalized evaluation that students receive certificates of
competency (report cards) from designated organizations. By assigning the student a certain grade, the
teacher does more than judge and validate the degree of student success; he also intervenes in a decisive
fashion in the student’s academic and professional environment. Jacquard denounced precisely this
type of situation when he accused teachers of treachery [...]. According to him, society abdicates its role
when it asks teachers to go against their natural complicity with students by rendering peremptory
judgments and sanctions.
Teachers should be true coaches and provide students with resources during the entire learning process.
The final summative evaluation and selection should be left to others. In short, the formative evaluation
should be the responsibility of the teacher and the summative evaluation should be left to society!
1
2
3
Translated from Albert Jacquard, Inventer l’homme, Éd. Complexe, Brussels, 1984, 183 p., p. 170.
Translated from Gérard Scallon, L’évaluation formative des apprentissages. La réflexion, Presses de l’Université Laval,
1988, 171 p., p. 135.
Translated from L. Allal, Vers une pratique de l’évaluation formative, De Boeck Wesmael, Brussels, 1991, 158 p., p. 13.
Page 144 de 383
2.
Evaluating in a formative and summative way
Theoretical considerations (cont’d)
We will not settle this theoretical debate but we will try to define it in terms with which the teacher is
more familiar.
Whether desirable or not, the teacher performs both formative and summative evaluations and it is
wrong to view this bimodal function as merely accessory. In fact, pedagogically speaking, the formative
evaluation exhibits a favourable advantage when compared to the summative evaluation. And this is not
just a bias. Many research results attest to the superiority of the formative evaluation over the
summative evaluation, relative to effectiveness of teaching.
We are in complete agreement and in fact believe that the formative evaluation could be considered the
act of teaching itself, given that it is inherent to it. How can we possibly conceive of effective teaching
without continuous feedback between the teacher and the student? Whether formal or not, the formative
evaluation should be essential to teaching because it provides essential information on learning.
However, a great number of teachers are still not giving it the attention it deserves. The reasons given are
diverse and summarized in the writings of J. Lavoie-Sirois4. However, despite the key role played by the
formative evaluation in teaching, it is important not to forget the summative evaluation and the role it
plays.
Admittedly, many teachers are convinced of the effectiveness of formative evaluations in the learning
process, but there are others that recognize the unquestionably effective role that should be played by
summative evaluations. Students may say “that they do not work for the grade”, but they continue
nevertheless to ask “does this count or not?”. And in truth it does count, because when a teacher assigns
the student a grade at the end of a learning cycle, he places the student in a competitive situation that will
inevitable impact him in ways he cannot anticipate. This fact alone should dictate that the summative
evaluation be handled in as professional a manner as possible. It is frequently the case that grade acts as
a strong motivator in the learning process. Behaviourist theories on the effects of rewards and
punishments did not originate from Tarot readings! Every teacher who has used formative evaluations
frequently, without assigning a grade, can attest to the fact that these result in decreased student efforts
over time.
Wanting to distinguish between formative and summative evaluations resulted in a dissassociation rather
than working in collaboration towards a common goal, i.e., the evaluation of learning. However, in our
opinion, this is the right pedagogical path on which to embark.
In short, let us stress that the formative evaluation draws its maximum effectiveness when it lets students
understand the precise nature of their learning and by effectively preparing them for the summative
evaluation. We will discuss later how this is possible on a practical level. The summative evaluation, for
its part, draws its maximum effectiveness by validating the level of mastery of learning; and, by acting as
a lever or motivating agent for later learning. This will also be reviewed in the following pages.
4
Translated from J. Lavoie-Sirois, La problématique de l’évaluation formative chez les enseignants et les enseignantes.
Non-published course notes taken from an improvement session, Documents A, B, C and D, Université Laval, Faculty of
Education, 1991, 27 p., p. 3-5.
Page 145 de 383
3.
Formative evaluation versus summative evaluation
All things considered, the teacher who wants to effectively use both summative and formative
evaluations, should position them on a continuum where, in a complementary fashion , formative
evaluations in fact prepare the student for upcoming summative evaluations.
Statements
— The formative evaluation is generally more effective than the summative
evaluation in supporting quality learning in students.
— The formative evaluation achieves its maximum effectiveness when it prepares
the ground for the summative evaluation. Used alone and too frequently, it can
negatively impact student efforts and interest.
— The formative evaluation is done throughout the student learning process.
— The formative evaluation has diagnostic and prescriptive qualities.
— This type of evaluation displays great flexibility in its methods of application:
exercises, written and oral comments, encouragement, formal and informal
feedback, etc.
— The formative evaluation is also applicable to several types of learning objectives
(memorization, judgment, analysis, transfer of knowledge, attitudes, etc.).
— The formative evaluation allows students to participate in their own evaluation.
— The summative evaluation is used only at the end of a learning process and for
assessment purposes.
— The summative evaluation evaluates a broader body of learning than the
formative evaluation.
— The summative evaluation is directed towards a decision on the level of student
success.
— The summative evaluation is always quantified or assigned a grade.
— The summative evaluation is always formal and objective.
— The summative evaluation can have a motivating effect on students, particularly
students who are high achievers.
— The summative evaluation results in immediate and far-reaching consequences
for the student, and demands professionalism from the teacher.
Page 146 de 383
4.
To evaluate in a formative and summative way
Practical advice
—
When evaluating student learning in a formative way, define the value of this type of evaluaiton
very clearly by demonstrating that “it counts even if it does not count for grades”!
—
Avoid repetitive formative evaluations. When they are frequent and closely spaced, these
evaluations end up “de-motivating” students.
—
Regularly connect formative evaluations to later summative evaluations. For example, use
questions in a simulated examination and advise students that these questions will be on the
summative examination. Vary the formative evaluation: oral questions in the classroom, written
test, questionnaire corrected by the students, distribution of answers, questionnaire-games,
teamwork, student identification of problems and resolutions, immediate reference to reading
assignments, individual feedback in the classroom, etc.
—
The use of formative evaluation grids is strongly recommended. [...]
—
When evaluating students in a summative way, focus the evaluation on what is essential to the
achievement of course objectives. Not everything can be evaluated, nor is it realistic to believe it
can be. In theory, examinations of 25 questions or more should be avoided and written work must
be directly connected to course objectives, well defined and include precise instructions. [… ]
—
Always inform your students in advance of evaluation dates and repeat the information.
—
You can provide examination questions to students in advance, when the evaluation’s targeted
objectives make it feasible. This process help guide students in their studies and maximizes
efforts. It is particularly suited to examinations with “open” questions (10 or more questions).
—
This practice has no value for exams that are said to be “objective”. The purpose of the
examination is not to trap students but to validate their understanding of the subject matter.
Providing the questions in advance - when feasible – displays good faith and guides the students in
preparatory work, it also increases their sense of security.
—
To give a formative character to summative evaluations, allow students to “correct” their
examination answers whenever feasible. The formula of at-home exams lends itself well to selfcorrection and many students – both weak and strong – benefit from this exercise. In such a case,
interested students must meet with the teacher only at predetermined times so as not to overload
their teacher’s workloard. This type of activity results in a decreased workload relative to final
corrections.
—
You can also allow students to bring a sheet or index card, that they have prepared prior to the
exam, to summarize the subject matter. In this situation, you may choose not to provide students
with questions in advance.
Translated from Jean Proulx, Enseigner mieux, stratégies d’enseignement, Cégep de Trois-Rivières, 1993, p. 169-174.
Page 147 de 383
5.
The summative evaluation
Function
To prepare an assessment of what
the student has learned in order to
make decisions relative to
validation of studies and
certification
Decision
Goal
Decisions of an administrative
nature:
Goals :
— validate achievement of
objectives
within
a
program or section of a
program (course)
— certification
— passing grade to next
level
Decisions
nature:
of
a
— grant
credits
and/or
recognize acquisitions
pedagogical
When:
— to create special groups
— at the end of learning
— to organize remedial
courses
Content:
Summative
evaluation
— final program objectives
— final objective
(integration) of a course
Judgment
Measurement
Type of feedback (judgment) :
— information and judgment
relative to each student that is:
— analytical (profile
acquisitions)
of
— summarial
(global judgment)
— information relative to the
group:
Type
of
interpretation:
measurement
— criteria-based
— normative (this measurement
should not be present in a
competency-based
approach)
Means:
— global indicators of group
acquisitions
— final test
— comprehensive
assessment
SRD/adapted from PEPFO (Projet d’excellence pédagogique des francophones de l’Ontario)
Page 148 de 383
6.
The formative evaluation
Function
To provide feedback on student
progress, identify errors, their cause
and introduce corrective measures.
Decision
Decisions
nature:
of
a
Goal
pedagogical
Goals
— adapt to the needs of the
students (individual or
group)
— modification of teaching
and learning strategies or
framework
— help the student to
progress
When:
— before, during and after
the learning process
Content:
Formative
evaluation
— one or more learning
objectives
— the final course objective
— the
final
objectives
Judgment
Measurement
Type of feedback
(judgment) :
Type
of
interpretation
— information and judgment
relative to each student that is:
— analytical (profile
acquisitions)
program
of
measurement
— criteria-based
Means:
(measurement tools) :
— summarial
(global judgment)
— information relative to the
group:
— global indicators of group
acquisitions
— tests
constructed
to
identify errors and plan
corrective measures
— observation grids
— rating scale
— journals
— …
SRD/adapted from PEPFO (Projet d’excellence pédagogique des francophones de l’Ontario)
Page 149 de 383
7.
Advantages of the formative evaluation
1.
Focuses on the process more than the product (the product is just a product, i.e., the result of a
process).
2.
Facilitates cooperation; competition impedes cooperation.
3.
Creates a climate of security that is more productive than stress generated by external controls
and values placed on performance.
4.
Rapidity of execution; there is nothing more time-consuming that grading assignments.
5.
Allows for feedback on all aspects of education.
6.
Reduces the burden of corrections, by entrusting the essential work of formative evaluation to
the student.
7.
Allows the student to assume responsibility for his learning.
8.
Allows for transmittal of information relative to qualities and weaknesses of work, as well as
desired improvements.
9.
Enables and even encourages intellectual risk; allows students to go off the beaten paths without
risk of being penalized.
10. Supports frequent feedback, which in turn motivates students.
Excerpt translated from Ulric Aylwin, “Apologie de l’évaluation formative ”, Pédagogie collégiale, March 1995.
Page 150 de 383
8.
Examples of formative evaluation exercises
—
Find three words that summarize the presentation that just took place.
—
Give an example of the rule (or concept or formula) explained in the preceeding presentation.
—
Find the rule (or concept or formula) that is expressed in the following example.
—
Identify the elements of the subject matter you did not understand.
—
Identify the elements you understood the best.
—
Form pairs using the two lists of words provided (for example, a list of symptoms and one of
diagnostics).
—
Compare your course notes with those of your neighbour.
—
Write a sentence that summarizes the presentation that occured.
—
Draft a question on the presentation’s essential theme.
—
Given a specific answer, find the question that goes with it; or given a solution, identify the
problem.
—
Given a specific situation, identify the factors or circumstances that created it.
—
Given a specific situation, identify the resulting impact or phenomena.
—
Classify a list of words according in a specific order.
—
Complete the following concepts.
—
Identify in the following table, the compoenents that are missing, unnecessary or erroneous.
—
Given the following problem, list the steps or procedure required to find the solution.
—
Given the present situation, what diagnosis would you recommend? (What decision should be
made? What action should be taken?)
—
Etc.
Translated from Ulric Aylwin, Petit guide pédagogique, Montréal, AQPC, 1994, p. 67.
Page 151 de 383
s
Learning tool 4.E
Principles and rules that govern my actions55
Key questions and principles
Comments:
BY WHOM?
Does this statement fall under the teaching
paradigm or the learning paradigm?
Is it present in my evaluation practices?
Novelty and pertinence of this principle?
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………
Proposed principle(s)
THE SUMMATIVE EVALUATION
1)
The summative evaluation of learning
belongs to the teacher; it respects the
principles adopted by the establishment and
the department and although it can be shared
with colleagues, it cannot be shared with the
learner whose leaning is being evaluated nor
his colleagues.
THE FORMATIVE EVALUATION
2)
The teacher is not the only person
responsible for formative evaluations, nor
should he be: it is desirable, in student
learning, that formative evaluation methods
call upon peer evaluation and self-evaluation.
OF WHOM?
Proposed pinciple(s)
1)
The summative
individualized.
evaluation
must
be
2)
It is not necessary for the formative
evaluation to validate individual work but it is useful
wtih this type of evaluation to use collective methods
for observation, judgment and feedback.
55
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
Translated from Cécile D’Amour, Principes et règles d’action qui devraient guider l’évaluation des apprentissages,
Session de perfectionnement, Cégep de l’Abitibi-Témincamingue, 1995.
Page 152 de 383
Comments:
WHAT?
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
1)
The summative evaluation within a course
must deal uniquely with objectives that were
precisely pre-determined as learning
objectives in the course.
2)
3)
The formative evaluation must deal with the
principal components or stages of targeted
learning in the course that will be the object
of the summative evaluation.
The formative evaluation can also deal with
objectives that are not included in the
summative
evaluation
(for
example,
objectives relative to basic education or
personal student objectives).
Proposed pinciple(s) paradigm or the learning paradigm?
1)
The summative evaluation must be based on Novelty and pertinence of this principle?
on criteria:
…………………………………………………
— that are predetermined;
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
— transmitted to the student;
— common to all student groups within the …………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
same course.
…………………………………………………
2)
The evaluation criteria must be appropriate
…………………………………………………
to:
…………………………………………………
— the learning objective;
…………………………………………………
— the student level of learning.
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
3)
The formative evaluation must (primarily) be
…………………………………………………
based on the same criteria used for the
…………………………………………………
summative evaluation so that students may
…………………………………………………
incorporate them.
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
ACCORDING TO WHAT?
Page 153 de 383
Comments:
TO WHAT POINT?
1)
The level of requirements on which the
summative evaluation of learning is based,
must be achievable by the great majority of
students admitted to the course providing
they benefit from quality teaching and do
adequate personal work, both qualitatively
and quantitatively (respecting the weighting
assigned to the course).
2)
The minimum degree of mastery for each
component of complex learning must
correspond to the value of that component
(some components may require perfect
mastery).
3)
The formative evaluation must motivate
students to achieve the highest possible
mastery of targeted learning; it must not
orient students exclusively towards meeting
the minimum threshold (a passing grade).
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
Page 154 de 383
Comments:
Proposed pinciple(s) Does this statement fall under the teaching
1) The summative evaluation of learning must Novelty and pertinence of this principle?
be an “evaluation that is criteria-based”, i.e. …………………………………………………
it must be carried out in relation to a …………………………………………………
predetermined standard (threshold of …………………………………………………
success) and be based on pre-established …………………………………………………
criteria – not in relation to student …………………………………………………
performance at the beginning of the course …………………………………………………
(evaluation of progress) or in comparison …………………………………………………
with other student performances (normative …………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
evaluation).
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
2)
The formative evaluation must allow the
…………………………………………………
student to meet standards and to judge how
…………………………………………………
his learning relates to these standards.
…………………………………………………
3)
It can be useful within the scope of a …………………………………………………
formative evaluation, to use a prior level of …………………………………………………
learning or the performance of colleagues as …………………………………………………
a reference point (to promote mutual …………………………………………………
understanding and assistance, and to not …………………………………………………
promote competition).
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
IN RELATION TO WHAT?
Page 155 de 383
Comments:
THE DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION
1)
The diagnostic evaluation at the beginning of Is it present in my evaluation practices?
a course is primarily useful for students but Novelty and pertinence of this principle?
also for professors.
2)
Results must be communicated individually …………………………………………………
to the student.
…………………………………………………
3)
The overall results of diagnostic evaluations …………………………………………………
of classroom-groups in a course should be …………………………………………………
communicated to professors who teach …………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
courses that are prerequisites to this course.
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
4)
The formative evaluation within the course is
…………………………………………………
useful for both students and the professor,
…………………………………………………
from a perspective of regulating the teaching
…………………………………………………
and learning processes.
…………………………………………………
5)
The formative evaluation does not always …………………………………………………
have to be confidential; it can be done in a …………………………………………………
progressively informal fashion, as trust is …………………………………………………
developed over time in the classroom-group. …………………………………………………
(An open approach makes it possible for …………………………………………………
several students to benefit from feedback …………………………………………………
offered on one student’s productions or …………………………………………………
performance vs a confidential approach; it …………………………………………………
also increases social interactions conducive …………………………………………………
to learning; and has the advantage of …………………………………………………
reducing the amount of teacher corrections.) …………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
6)
The results of a summative evaluation …………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
officially sanction studies.
…………………………………………………
7)
The results of a summative evaluation must …………………………………………………
be communicated to students in a …………………………………………………
confidential manner.
…………………………………………………
8)
The overall results of a summative evaluation …………………………………………………
for classroom-groups in a course, should be …………………………………………………
communicated (for analytical purposes) to …………………………………………………
teachers, whose responsibility is to ensure …………………………………………………
course quality.
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
FOR WHOM? Proposed principle(s)
Page 156 de 383
Comments:
1)
The primary purpose of a diagnostic Is it present in my evaluation practices?
evaluation at the beginning of a course, is to Novelty and pertinence of this principle?
help students and professors plan the work
ahead:
…………………………………………………
— The teacher will have a better grasp of …………………………………………………
student concepts and acquisitions and be …………………………………………………
more able to anticipate learning difficulties; …………………………………………………
— Students will have a more accurate view of …………………………………………………
their acquired strengths and their …………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
weaknesses.
2)
The results of the diagnostic evaluation can …………………………………………………
also serve to promote reflection on what …………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
students acquired in prior courses.
…………………………………………………
THE INFORMATIVE EVALUATION
…………………………………………………
3)
The finality of the formative evaluation …………………………………………………
serves to regulate teaching and learning …………………………………………………
processes.
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
4)
The primary purpose of the summative …………………………………………………
evaluation in a course is to attest to the level …………………………………………………
of mastery achieved as regards the learning …………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
targeted in the course, the level reached:
…………………………………………………
— by each individual,
…………………………………………………
— at the end of the course.
…………………………………………………
5)
The results of the formative evaluation can …………………………………………………
also contribute to a program’s global …………………………………………………
evaluation process or the teaching dispensed …………………………………………………
within a department.
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
FOR WHAT? Proposed principle(s)
Page 157 de 383
Comments:
1)
A diagnostic evaluation must take place at Is it present in my evaluation practices?
the beginning of a course (first or second Novelty and pertinence of this principle?
week).
WHEN?
…………………………………………………
The formative evaluation must be used …………………………………………………
regularly, at pivotal moments in the learning …………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
process.
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
3)
All summative evaluations must take place at
…………………………………………………
the end of a pivotal stage or segment of
…………………………………………………
learning.
…………………………………………………
(“at the end” means when most of the …………………………………………………
students should have completed that stage of …………………………………………………
learning)
…………………………………………………
(see principles listed under “HOW?” (the …………………………………………………
methods)
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
2)
1)
The summative evaluation must take place in Is it present in my evaluation practices?
the most authentic context possible, relative Novelty and pertinence of this principle?
to the goal(s) to be evaluated.
2)
The context must respect the principles …………………………………………………
adopted for the evaluation process.
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
3)
The formative evaluation can take place in …………………………………………………
contexts that differ from those of the …………………………………………………
summative evaluation, but they must also …………………………………………………
prepare students to work effectively in such …………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
contexts.
…………………………………………………
(For example, a formative evaluation can be
…………………………………………………
made from the perspective of a group
…………………………………………………
assignment, even if the summative
…………………………………………………
evaluation is based exclusively on individual
…………………………………………………
assignments.)
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
IN WHAT CONTEXT?
Proposed principles(s)
Page 158 de 383
Comments:
HOW? Proposed principle(s) (means)
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
………………………………………………
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
The methods used to evaluate the
accomplishment of a goal must “respect”
nature of the objective and the level of
mastery sought. (coherence goals /methods)
At the end of the course, there must be a test
(with one or more sections) dealing with the
final goal(s) of the course, in all its(their)
complexity and totality. (final test.)
The report card grade should reflect the
degree of mastery of learning at the end of
the course; it cannot simply be the total of
grades given at different moments during the
training. (construction of the final grade)
To achieve “success”, the student must pass
the final test (this is an absolute
requirement).
A student who fails the final test despite
having passed most of the tests leading up to
it, should have the right to rewrite the exam.
(conditions for rewriting)
6)
7)
It is beneficial to use the formative
evaluation in various ways (formal and
informal, individual or group, oral or written,
interactive or not, etc.).
The methods adopted must always include
feedback and offer possibilities for correction
and adjustments in learning and teaching.
Page 159 de 383
Comments:
HOW? Proposed principle(s)
FOR OVERALL EVALUATIONS
1)
Transparency
Students must be clearly informed:
— of the general principles and rules
prevailing in the establishment as regards
the evaluation of learning;
— of the various components of the evaluation
process in each course.
2)
Frequency and integration
The course must include frequent formative
evaluations that are linked to the summative
evaluation and also well integrated into the
teaching and learning processes.
3)
4)
Accuracy
The evaluation methods provide an accurate
evaluation. To accomplish this, we must
ensure the validity and reliability of the
evaluation tools (in situations where
reliabilty is relevant).
Fairness
In order to ensure fair treatment for students
in all courses, the summative evaluation for
the overall course must avoid all forms of
discrimination and be administered based on
common principles and guidelines (adopted
by the institution and the department
responsible for the course).
(Rules are to be applied in a considered and
critical manner; with modifications if
necessary).
In addition, the summative evaluation must
be equivalent for all students in the same
course (whether they have the same professor
or not).
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
……………………………………………
Page 160 de 383
Comments:
HOW? Proposed principle(s) (means)
To achieve a final integrative goal relative to
complex learning, that in some cases will be directly
tranferable outside the collegial environment.
In addition to the previously mentioned general
principles we must take into account the following
specific principles:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
The degree of achievement of complex
learning is more appropriately expressed by a
“snapshot” of the mastery of the various
components in interaction rather than the
results of tests where components are
evaluated separately. (interaction rather than
juxtaposition)
Tasks used to evaluate complex learning
must reflect the complexity of this learning
and must be as realistic as possible in
reflecting the way learning will be used
beyond collegial studies. (nature of the tasks)
The evaluation of the degree of mastery of
complex learning rests on an evaluation
judgment and not on a measurement.
(importance of the judgment)
To accurately evaluate the degree of mastery
of complex learning, we must use more than
one test. (number of tests)
The degree of mastery of complex learning is
more accurately reflected by resorting to a
scale defined by levels (a few numbers) than
by a scale expressed in percentages. (rating
scale)
6)
Formative evaluation methods must stimulate
metacognition and self-evaluation.
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
Page 161 de 383
Document 4.A
“Principles and rules that guide
the evaluation of learning”56
Key question
Principles and policies that should guide the evaluation of learning
OBJECT OF DECISION
Why?
GOAL (S)
1) The primary goal of the diagnostic evaluation, administered at the start of
a course, is to help students and teacher plan their work:
Within the scope of a
course, both the
diagnostic evaluation
and the formative
evaluation meet the
need for diagnosis and
regulation, with the
diagnosis being
stronger in a
“diagnostic” evaluation.
This evaluation can be
considered similar to a
formative evaluation
used at the beginninng
of a course.
a) The teacher will have a better grasp of student concepts and
acquisitions, and be more able to anticipate learning difficulties;
b) Students will have a more accurate view of their acquired strengths
and their weaknesses in relation to what is required to undertake the
course.
2) In certain courses, the diagnostic evaluation can help the student
understand the purpose of the course and become aware of the gaps
between his capacities and what is needed to pass the course.
3) The results of the diagnostic evaluation can also serve to nourrish a
reflection on what students acquired in prior courses.
4) The purpose of the formative evaluation is the regulation of teaching and
learning processes, regulation that can be the result of a diagnosis.
5) The primary purpose of the summative evaluation of learning for an
overall course is to officially attest to the level of mastery achieved:
—
for each individual,
—
at the end of the course.
6) The reults of the formative evaluation can also contribute to the
evaluation process within a program or the teaching dispensed within a
department.
56
Translated from Cécile D’Amour, Principes et règles d’action qui devraient guider l’évaluation des
apprentissages, Proficiency session, Cégep de l’Abitibi-Témincamingue, 1995.
Page 162 de 383
Key question
OBJECT OF DECISION
For whom?
RECIPIENTS
1) The diagnostic evaluation, administered at the start of a course, is
useful for students and the professor.
2) The results must be communicated individually to each student. It is
also worthwhile for the professor to communicate the overall results
to the classroom-group and to explain how this “snapshot” will be
taken into account in the planning of teaching, learning and
evaluation activities (impact on student motivation).
3) The overall results of the diagnostic evaluation, for the classroomgroup of a given course, should be communicated to all teachers
offering courses that are prerequisites for this course.
4) The formative evaluation administed in a course is useful for students
and the professor in regulating the teaching and learning processes.
5) The formative evaluation does not always have to be confidential; it
can be conducted in a progressively more open manner, in a more
public fashion, as trust develops in the classroom-group57.
6) The results of the summative evaluation serve to officially sanction
studies.
7) The results of the summative evaluation must be communicated to
the students in a confidential manner.
8) The overall results of the summative evaluation, for the classroomgroup of a given course, should be communicated to the professors
who are responsible for course quality (departments, program teams,
etc.). (Any documents useful for interpretation should accompany the
results.)
57
The open approach versus confidentiality makes it possible for several students to benefit from feedback based on
a student’s production or performance; this way of proceeding increases social interactions conducive to learning;
it also offers the advantage of reducing the professor’s burden of corrections.
Page 163 de 383
Key question
OBJECT OF DECISION
When?
TIME AND
FREQUENCY
1)
A diagnostic evaluation must take place at the start of a course (first or
second meeting).
2)
The formative evaluation must be used regularly, at pivotal moments in
the learning process and any time the teacher deems it necessary to
check the impact of his teaching.
3)
All summative evaluations must take place at the end of a pivotal stage
of learning.
(“at the end” means the moment when most of the students should have
completed that stage of learning)
4.
The definitive judgment that follows the summative evaluation must be
made when it is no longer possible to go back over past content.
(see principles listed under “HOW?” (the methods)
Of whom?
SUBJECT(S)
1)
The summative evaluation must be individualized, that is, the judgment
must be based on indicators obtained from the individual whose
learning we are trying to sanction. These indicators can also relate to a
group activity.
2)
Not only is it unncessary for the formative evaluation to be given in the
form of an individual assignment, but it is practical for this type of
evaluation to use collective methods for observation, judgment and
feedback purposes.
Page 164 de 383
Key question
OBJECT OF DECISION
Of what?
OBJECT(S)
1) The diagnostic evaluation, in one or several more-or-less formal sections,
must deal with all objects (concepts, beliefs, acquisitions, intellectual
practices) likely to have an influence on learning.
2) The summative evaluation within a course must deal exclusively with the
objective(s) that was(were) clearly stated and pursued as the targeted
learning for the course.
3) Any component that will be the object of the summative evaluation must
first have been evaluated in a formative evaluation.
4) The formative evaluation can also relate to goals that will not be the
object of the summative evaluation (for example, certain basic education
goals or personal student goals).
5)
The formative evaluation deals with results and processes as well as
with the student’s judgment on the processes and results.
Based on what?
CRITERIA
The summative evaluation of a student’s learning must be an “evaluation
established on a criteria-based interpretation”, that is, the judgment
must must be given in comparison with a pre-determined standard
(threshold of success) and based on pre-established criteria, and not
in comparison with the student’s performance at the beginning of the
course [evaluation of progress] or in comparison with the
performances of other students [normative evaluation].
2)
The diagnostic evaluation must enable the teacher and the students to
get an overview of the situation:
in relation to prior learning judged necessary (prerequisite threshold)
to the pursuit of the targeted goal,
in relation to factors likely to support learning or detract from it, in
certain courses;
in relation to the threshold to be achieved at the end of the course.
3)
Even though the formative evaluation must enable the student to
position himself with regard to the threshold to be attained, it can also
prove useful to compare this level with a prior level of learning or
with the performance of colleagues (to enlighten and stimulate).
Page 165 de 383
Key question
OBJECT OF DECISION
In relation to what?
POINTS OF
1)
COMPARISON
2)
The summative evaluation must be based on criteria that are:
—
predefined;
—
familiar to the students and understood by them;
—
the same for different groups of students who follow the same
course.
The evaluation criteria must be:
—
adapted to the learning objective;
—
adapted to the level of student training;
—
relative to the future context of transfer.
3)
The criteria used for summative evaluations must also be used for the
formative evaluation so that students can incorporate them.
Their use can be adjusted (progressive introduction; use only a few of
them, use of various combinations; etc.).
Other criteria can be used, for example, in the following two
circumstances:
when they relate to training included in the program but are not
the object of a summative evaluation within the course;
when they are useful for a student’s learning progress.
Page 166 de 383
Key question
OBJECT OF DECISION
To what point?
REQUIREMENTS,
THRESHOLD
OF
SUCCESS (STANDARDS)
1) The course requirements that form the basis for the summative evaluation
of learning, must be achievable by the great majority of students in the
course providing they benefit from quality teaching and do adequate
personal, both qualitatively and quantitatively (respecting the weighting
2)
a) At the end of the program: the requirements must correspond to the
entry level in the labour market or for university studies.
b) At the end of the course: the requirements must be established to
allow for a normal progression in the program.
If a course represents the final stage toward a program objective, the
condition stipulated in a) must apply.
c) At the end of a stage in a course: the requirements must be
established in order to enable, at the very least, a normal progression
within the course; certain components require a greater mastery than
others (some require absolute mastery).
3) The formative evaluation must motivate students to reach the greatest
possible mastery of targeted learning; it must not orient students
exclusively towards toward meeting the minimum threshold (standard for
a passing grade)58, even if it must provide students with opportunities to
appropriate this standard and to judge where their learning stands in
relation to it.
58
Translated from Ulric Aylwin, “Quel niveau de compétence? Une ambiguïté fondamentale”, Pédagogie
collégiale, vol. 8, no 2, December 1994, p. 26 and 27.
Page 167 de 383
Key question
OBJECT OF DECISION
By whom?
AGENT (s)
1)
The teacher is the person responsible for the summative evaluation; his
responsibility in this matter must be exercised while respecting the
principles adopted by the establishment and the department and,
although this responsibility may be shared with teaching colleagues, it
cannot be shared with the individual whose learning is being evaluated
nor his peers.
2)
It is not recommended that the teacher be the only evaluator. When
training students, it is better if formative evaluation methods call upon
peer evaluations and self-evaluation activities.
How?
METHODS
1)
The methods used to evaluate an objective must respect the nature of
the objective as well as the criteria and the level of mastery sought (the
connectors between objectives, criteria, levels and methods).
2)
The report card grade should reflect the degree of mastery of learning
at the end of the course; it cannot simply be the total of grades taken at
different moments during the training session (construction of the final
grade).
3)
At the end of the course, there must be an overall test (one or more
sections) dealing with the final course goal(s), in all its complexity and
totality (final test).
4)
To achieve “success”, the student must pass the final test (this is an
absolute requirement).
5)
A student who fails the final test despite having passed most of the
tests leading up to it, should have the right to rewrite the exam
(conditions for rewriting).
6)
7)
It is beneficial to vary the methods of using the formative evaluation
(formal and informal, individual or group, oral or written, interactive
or not, etc.).
The methods adopted must always include feedback and offer
possibilities for correction and adjustments in learning and teaching.
Page 168 de 383
Key question
OBJECT OF DECISION
How?
QUALITIES
FOR OVERALL EVALUATIONS
1)
Transparency
Students must be clearly informed:
— of the general principles and rules prevailing in the evaluation of
learning at the college and in the course;
— of the various components making up the process of evaluation in
each course.
2)
Frequency and integration
The course must include frequent formative evaluations that are
linked to the summative evaluation and well integrated into the
teaching and learning processes.
3)
4)
Accuracy
The evaluation methods used must evaluate with precision what we
wish to evaluate. To accomplish this, we must ensure the validity of
the evaluation tools as well as their reliability (in situations where
reliability is relevant).
Fairness
In order to ensure fair student treatment in all courses, the summative
evaluation for the overall course must avoid all forms of
discrimination and be administered based on common principles and
guidelines (adopted by the establishment and department responsible
for the course).
(Rules are to be applied in a considered and critical manner; with
modifications if necessary).
In addition, the summative evaluation must be equivalent for all
students in the same course (whether it is the same professor or not).
Page 169 de 383
Key question
OBJECT OF DECISION
Where? With what?
For how long?
1)
CONTEXT OR CONTEXTS
2)
The summative evaluation must take place in the most authentic
context possible, relative to the goal(s) whose attainment we wish to
evaluate.
The context must respect the principles adopted for the evaluation
process.
3)
The formative evaluation can take place in contexts that differ from
those of the summative evaluation, but they must also prepare
students to work effectively in such contexts.
How?
METHODS
1)
For a final integrating
objective relative to
complex learning and,
in certain cases, directly 2)
tranferable outside of
collegial studies.
In addition to general
principles mentioned
earlier, we must also
take into consideration
the ones provided here
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
The degree of achievement of complex learning is more appropriately
expressed by a “snapshot” of the mastery of the various components
in interaction, rather than the results of tests where components are
evaluated separately (interaction rather than juxtaposition).
Tasks used to evaluate complex learning must reflect the complexity
of this learning and must be as authentic as possible relative to the
way in which the learning will be used beyond collegial studies
(nature of the tasks).
They must make it possible judge the mastery of this complexity and,
if necessary, of the capacity to transfer (which the simple observation
of a performance does not enable). (nature of the test)
The evaluation of the degree of mastery of complex learning rests on
an evaluation judgment and not on a measurement. (importance of
the judgment)
To accurately evaluate the degree of mastery of complex learning, we
must use more than one test. (number of tests)
The degree of mastery of complex learning is more accurately
reflected by resorting to a scale defined with levels (a few numbers)
than by a scale defined with percentages. (rating scale)
The judgment of “success” must be based on a certain stability in
demonstrating mastery of the integrating objective. (basis for
determining final grade)
8)
The methods of formative evaluation must stimulate metacognition
and self-evaluation.
Page 170 de 383
Chapter 5
The establishment of a general evaluation strategy takes place during the last stage of instructional
planning and is dependent on decisions taken during the development of the study program, the
determination of local specifications, the elaboration of the course framework and lastly the lesson plan.
After having identified the planning levels for the course, the next stage in the planning process is to
establish a general evaluation strategy. Decisions taken with regard to course sections will affect the
choices made relative to the evaluation of learning. In fact, the choice of learning sequence establishes the
progression of learning relative to the development stages of a competency, which in turn will correspond
to the summative evaluation activities structured within the course.
Evaluation is no longer dissociated with teaching and learning. It no longer interferes with the process and
is no longer used only to crown success or ratify failure. “Teaching, learning, and evaluation are not
sequential and are not considered distinct moments in the pedagogical process. Rather, they are dynamic
interactions within the process. It is therefore not necessary to plan for evaluations that are distinct from
learning situations; in fact, evaluation becomes an integral part of a teaching approach in which various
methods of regulation or self-regulation of learning activities and instructions are present.” (Legendre,
2001) This is particularly true in the case of formative evaluations, that is, evaluations integrated into
training and adapted to the process of developing competencies.
The purpose of this activity is to establish a general evaluation strategy. To begin, we present an example
of a general evaluation strategy. Then, after having defined various planning levels (Learning tool 5.B),
Tool 5.C is used to identify the process in “course planning based on the development of a competency”
and to develop a general evaluation strategy.
After studying the components of a general evaluation strategy, the activity proceeds with the
development of a general evaluation strategy.
Page 171 de 383
Chapter Synopsis:
Activity 5:
A general evaluation strategy
Activity 5.1:
Sample general evaluation strategy and related documents
Activity 5.2:
Planning levels
Activity 5.3:
Components and tools of a general evaluation strategy
Activity 5.4:
Learning Tools:
Learning tool 5.A:
Sample general evaluation strategy and related documents
Learning tool 5.B:
Course planning levels: from ministerial specifications to lesson
planning
Learning tool 5.C:
Course planning based on competency development
Learning tool 5.D:
Components and tools of a general evaluation strategy
Complementary document:
Complementary document 6: From a planning approach to an evaluation plan for the final course
examination
Page 172 de 383
Activity 5
The general evaluation strategy
Heading
General evaluation strategy
Objective
To distinguish planning levels
To establish links between instructional planning and evaluation.
To develop the key steps in a general evaluation strategy.
Description
When course planning is in its preparatory stages, many decisions will be
affected by prior decisions taken relative to the development of a local program
and subsequent course planning.
After having identified the planning levels for the course, the presentation of
the planning process helps position the general evaluation strategy. Decisions
taken with regard to course sections affect the choices made relative to the
evaluation of learning. In fact, the choice of learning sequence establishes the
progression of learning relative to the development stages of a competency,
which in turn corresponds to the summative evaluation activities structured
within the course.
Selection of course sections prepares the ground for the development of a
general evaluation strategy. Each section of the course becomes a stage in
competency development and serves as material for the summative evaluations
during the training and at the end of the cycle.
Unfolding
Activity 5.1
Example of a general evaluation strategy
A. To present, clarify and discuss a sample general evaluation strategy that
includes:
— a definition of the targeted training objective;
— the learning sequence;
— a summary view of course sections;
— the components of the ‘general evaluation strategy’ example using
Learning tool 5.A: “Example of a general evaluation strategy and
related documents”.
Page 173 de 383
Activity 5.2
Planning levels
B. When developing a general evaluation strategy, a number of decisions
made during various planning levels influence, and even determine, the
general strategy:
—
initially, there are local specifications of the ministerial definition of
the competency;
—
there is general plan approved by the program team;
—
finally, there is the teacher’s course plan.
To properly align the process, the course planning levels should be
presented, clarified and discussed. Learning tool 5.B.
Following this, discuss the process of course planning centered on
competency development (Learning tool 5.C) so as to shed light on
participants’ personal practices relative to instructional planning.
In the final analysis, discuss the process and the results of the local
program development approach.
When developing an evaluation plan, many decisions will already have
been made in the early stages of the local program development process.
The choices made at the time of the evaluation of learning must respect
these prior decisions.
In order to clarify the context of the decisions to be made, it is useful to
review the overall development process for the program and course. The
data collected during these stages have a cumulative effect on both the
context and the content of the evaluation plan for the general evaluation
strategy and the final examination at the end of the course.
Since development approaches differ from one cégep to another, each
participant uses the approach adopted by his college. For an example, refer
to complementary document 6 entitled “From a planning approach to an
evaluation plan for the final course examination”.
Activity 5.3
The components of a general evaluation strategy
C. Present, clarify and discuss the components of a general evaluation
strategy using Learning tool 5.D: “The components of a general evaluation
strategy” and the tools which accompany this document.
Activity 5.4
D. Develop a general evaluation strategy working in small teams within the
same program:
a.
Review the example given in learning tool 5.A.
b.
Select a competency, or a component of a competency to be
developed in a course.
Page 174 de 383
c.
The general evaluation strategy is the last stage in the course planning
process. It takes into account the decisions made in the analysis of
training objectives and the division of the course into sections.
Consulting the course presentation and the description of the course
sections within a course plan facilitates the establishment of a general
evaluation strategy.
d.
Complete the grid using components of the strategy in learning tool
5.D.
E. Assess achievements and difficulties encountered during the development
of the strategy.
Moderator’s role
To create a climate favourable for discussion.
To clarify for participants an activity that contains a number of instructions.
To encourage participants to describe their personal way of doing things during
the development of a general evaluation strategy.
To actively participate in the accomplishment of all segments of the activity.
To draw up a personal assessment on ways of creating a general evaluation
strategy.
Pedagogical
material
Learning tool 5.A:
Example of a general evaluation strategy and related
documents
Learning tool 5.B:
Course planning levels: from ministerial specifications
to lesson planning
Learning tool 5.C:
Course planning centered on competency development
Learning tool 5.D:
Complementary
document
Approximate
duration
Activity 5.1:
2 hours
Activity 5.2:
2 hours
Activity 5.3:
2 hours
Activity 5.4:
6 hours
“From a planning approach to an evaluation plan for the final
course examination”
Page 175 de 383
Learning tool 5.A
Example of a general evaluation strategy and related documents59
A. Description of training objective
(Example taken from the course “Evaluating competencies”)
Objective
Statement of competency
To develop a summative evaluation of learning
activity that validates the development of all
components and competencies targeted by the
course.
Standard
Realization context
—
Individually or in teams;
—
During the development or review of a
course plan;
—
Using documentation produced for this
activity and available tools;
—
By taking into account the specifics
provided by the “Politique institutionnelle
d'évaluation des apprentissages (PIEA) of
your college.
Components of a competency
Performance criteria
1. To describe the characteristics of principles and
concepts associated with the evaluation of a
competency.
1.1 Adequate identification of the characteristics
of the concept of competency and of their
impact on instructional planning.
1.2 Sufficient comparison of the definition of
evaluation of learning to the principles that
guide its use within the context of
competency-based training.
1.3 Accurate identification of the basic
characteristics of the concept of evaluation.
1.4 Sufficient recognition of the changes that
competency-based learning brings to the
evaluation of learning.
2. To identify the components of a general
evaluation strategy for a competency.
2.1 Adequate understanding of the role of the
evaluation of competencies in course
planning.
2.2 Pertinent identification of the components of a
general evaluation strategy.
59
Translated from Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier, Course : L’évaluation des compétences, qu’est-ce que ça change dans la
planification de mes cours?, Colleges de la région de Québec, CPE/C Performa, Université de Sherbrooke, Fall 2001.
Page 176 de 383
2.3 Adequate description of procedures for using
tools to document a general evaluation
strategy.
3 To develop the final examination for a course 3.1 Pertinent analysis of the training objective(s)
that is centered on the development of a
targeted in the course.
competency.
3.2 Pertinent and valid choice of objects to be
evaluated based on the characteristics of the
competency.
3.3 Sufficient and adequate identification of
indicators and evaluation criteria.
3.4 Pertinent choice of evaluation methods
relative to the principles of competency-based
learning.
4
To develop and revise tools used for the 4.1 Adequate use of procedures and rules for
evaluation of competencies in the course.
structuring a marking grid.
4.2 Coherent justification of learning tool
contents relative to the objects being
evaluated.
5 To validate the evaluation tools that have been 5.1 Adequate identification of rules that ensure
developed and revised.
the validity and reliability of tools used to
evaluate competencies.
Page 177 de 383
B. The learning sequence
To establish the learning sequence required to achieve the training objective described in section (A)
Dividing the course into sections:
—
The learning sequence shows the order of
the sections and how teaching will be
organized
to
favour
competency
development.
—
Goal: to show how the progression of
learning will unfold for the overall
course.
Divide the course into sections and present a
synopsis of the progression of learning for the
whole course.
Example of presentation format:
Section 1:
— Title of the course section
Activities to be carried out
— Content overview
Taking into account:
— Duration
—
The production required from students
based on the statement of competency,
—
The components of competency,
—
The problem situation or evaluation that
is being used as a final test for the course,
—
The progressively complex approach …
Section 2:
— Duration
Section 3:
— Duration
Section 4:
determine the stages that the students must
complete, and structure them according to the
global unfolding of the course.
Results: the division of the course into
sections or learning sequences.
— Duration
Course sections help structure a general evaluation strategy.
Page 178 de 383
C. Synopsis of course sections
To validate the project produced in the preceding section with the help of this table.
The evaluation of competencies:
What does it change in
course planning?
15 hours, 1 credit
Sequence 3
Constructing a marking grid
Sequence 1
Planning the general evaluation
strategy for a course
Sequence 2
Elaborating an evaluation plan for
a competency
Concepts:
Competency
Learning evaluation
Impact on practices
General strategy components
Concepts:
Training objective
Evaluation objective
Indicators
Criteria
Procedures:
Develop a general strategy
Procedures:
Analysis of the development tasks
Development process (tasks 1-6)
Procedures:
Assessment of an evaluation plan
Elaboration process (tasks 7-10)
Analyze the relevance of each
object of the evaluation plan
Activities:
Presentations and discussions
Modelling
Activities:
Modelling
Task 2:
Develop a “summary” evaluation
plan
Task 1
Complete a table on the strategy
Activities:
Knowledge building exercises
Formative activity on using a tool
to develop a general strategy
Task 1:
Complete a table on the strategy
Concepts:
Evaluation methods
Components of a marking grid
Validity of correction tools
Sequence 4
Developing personally an
evaluation plan
Concepts:
Components of a general
evaluation strategy
Components of the evaluation plan
Procedures:
Development of an evaluation
strategy
Elaboration process for the
summative evaluation activity
Activities:
Collective and individual feedback
Task 1
Develop a final evaluation plan
Duration: 2 ½ hours
Duration: 4 hours
Duration: 5 hours
Duration: 4 hours
Page 179 de 383
D. Tool for developing a general evaluation strategy
Complete by entering the data on course sections and objects of evaluation that correspond to essential learning.
Course title: The evaluation of competencies. What does it change in course planning?
Program: Performa
Course number: MEE-251
Components of my evaluation strategy
Write the name of each course section:
Statement of competency (final integration objective):
To develop a summative evaluation activity that validates the A.
achievement of all components or competencies targeted in a course. B.
C.
D.
Course
section
no :
Evaluation
activity:
Timeframe
Objects to be evaluated
Task(s) required
(week no)
The evaluation activity refers to what learning?
Evaluation tool(s)
Type of evaluation
Diagnostic (D)
(By what means is the evaluation
activity carried out?)
Formative (F)
Summative (S)
Weighting
(% of final
grade)
Evaluator
Professors (P)
Students (S)
Others (specify)
Page 180 de 383
E. Marking grid: Course: The evaluation of competencies, what does it change in course planning?
Components of the general evaluation strategy
Statements (final integrating objectives) for each section of the course:
Statement of the competency (final integrating objective):
To determine the place and the role of the evaluation of learning in instructional
To develop a summative evaluation activity to validate the
planning
achievement of all components or competencies targeted in a
course.
To develop a summary evaluation plan for one or more competencies
To develop a marking grid in connection with the evaluation plan
To validate the development process for the evaluation plan
Course
section
no :
Activity
Timeframe
Task(s) required
no :
(week no)
The evaluation activity refers to what learning?
Evaluation tool(s)
Type of
evaluation
Diagnostic (D)
Weighting
(% of
grade)
Evaluators
final
Professors (P)
Students (S)
Formative (F)
Others (specify)
Summative (S)
1
1
Wednesday Individual representation of the concept of
May 5
competency, the evaluation of learning and
A.M.
principles connected to the evaluation of learning
2
3
2-A
4
Wednesday Development process for an evaluation plan
May 5
P.M.
Feedback following the formulation D/F
of definitions
Feedback following an exercise on
principles
F
Drafting of a general evaluation
strategy
D
-
P/S
-
P/S
-
PS
Feedback during and after the F
presentation of tasks 1 to 6
Drafting of a “summary” plan
-
P/S
-
P/S
-
P
5
2-B
6
D/F
Thursday
May 6
Development process for an evaluation plan
Feedback
on
evaluation plan”
the
“summary F
A.M.
Page 181 de 383
Course
section
no :
Activity
no :
Timeframe
(week no)
Task(s) required
The evaluation activity refers to what learning skill?
Evaluation tool(s)
Type of
evaluation
Diagnostic (D)
Weighting
(% of
grade)
Formative (F)
7
Thursday
Selection process for evaluation methods
May 6
A.M.
Development process for a marking grid
8
4
9
Thursday
Feedback during and after the F
presentation of tasks 7 and 8
Feedback during and after the
presentation of tasks 9 and 10
the
P/S
-
P/S
-
P/S
Individual feedback and support for F
Development of an evaluation plan for the final the plan under development
course examination
-
P/S
100 %
P
May 6
on
F
-
“evaluation F
Development of a general evaluation strategy
Feedback
strategy”
Students (S)
Others (specify)
Summative (S)
3
Evaluators
final Professors (P)
P.M.
10
Friday
May 7
A.M.
11
Deadline
Final test: production of an evaluation plan
for handing
in to be
determined
Final version
S
Page 182 de 383
Learning tool 5.B
Course planning levels: from ministerial specifications to lesson planning60
MEQ
elaborates
ministerial specifications
Ministerial
specifications
may include:
Ministerial administrative precisions
for
use
by
college and
program
team
to develop local
program
specifications
Program goals, purpose and pedagogical objectives
General training goals and pedagogical objectives
Objectives and standards for general education and specific training
Program team
elaborates
local
specifications
or for
institutional description of use
the program
by
program
team,
professors
to
courses
develop
Local
Analysis of ministerial description of competency:
specifications
Role of competencies in the training program
include mainly:
Clarification of the competency
Objectives (statement and components of competency)
Standards (realization context and performance criteria)
Identification of essential content (guidelines)
Framework for course plan:
60
MACROPLANNING
MICROPLANNNG
Role of the course in the training program
Teaching orientations
Orientations relative to the evaluations
Summary description of the final test
Mediagraphy for professors
Mediagraphy for students
Translated from Pierre Deshaies, Hemann Guy and Michel Poirier, “Les documents d’information selon les champs
d’action des enseignants” Recueil intégrateur, Section I : Une vision intégrée de la formation au collégial, Sherbrooke,
regroupement des collèges Performa, 2003.
Page 183 de 383
Course team or elaborates course plan
professor
(RREC 20)
The course plan
includes:
for
use
by
professors
to plan the course
and students and its content, its
unfolding and
requirements
— Identification and general information
— Preliminary report
— Learning objectives
— Course content, organization and a summary description for each course
section
— Methodological instructions
— Methods of course participation
— Evaluation of learning methods
— Material resources for students (Mediagraphy, …)
Professor
elaborates lesson plan
(PIEP)
The lesson plan
includes:
for use professor or to plan each lesson
by
students
as well as the
learning, teaching
and evaluation
activities
— Lesson objectives
— Teaching and learning activities organized according to a typical training
process
— Formative and summative evaluation activities
— Material resources
— Study tasks that follow each lesson and prepare the groundwork for
subsequent lessons (accompanied by respective instructions)
— References for consultation
Page 184 de 383
Learning tool 5.C61
Course planning
centered on the development of
competencies
Program
approach
Characteristics
of a
competency
Five stages of the process
Analysis of ministerial specifications
(Identification of final integration objective and
course contribution)
Clarification of competencies
(choice and organization of essential knowledge
Choice of course sections:
- Progression of learning according to
development stages of a competency
the
- Overall picture of the progression
The planning of each course section
(Choice of teaching and learning activities
Evaluation of the competency(ies):
- Development of an evaluation strategy
- Development of the final test
The products of course planning
(General plan; course plan; lesson plan)
Integration
of
learning
61
Global
development
perspective
(basic
education)
Translated from Pôle de l’Est, Processus de planification d’un cours centré sur le développement d’une compétence,
regroupement des collèges Performa, December 1996.
Page 185 de 383
Overall picture of the progression of learning
Example: competency 01Q3 (Nursing)
Section and duration
Section 1
7 hours
summative exam and
Learning objectives
To support our actions based on
—
principles that underscore professional
—
practice
—
oral presentation
Section 2
21 hours
Essential content
To rely on a conceptual model in the
performance of one’s duties
Concept of the person
Concept of health
Concept of the environment
—
Concept of primary health care
—
Clinical approach adapted to the person
—
Openness to integration of these concepts within our
professional practice
—
Conceptual model:
summative examination
and personal reflection
—
To use a patient care approach
o
definition
o
components
o
advantages
o
link between professional practices and
conceptual model
Model put forth by Virginia Henderson :
o
concepts
o
values
o
components
o
fundamental need
o
list of the 14 fundamental needs
o
concept of independence-dependence
—
Analysis of 4 fundamental needs
—
Problem solving process
—
Link between the process for problem solving and:
o
the model put forth by Virginia Henderson
o
the practice of nursing
o
the process of dispensing care
—
the stages of dispensing care and their
implementation
—
Data collection :
o
—
Analysis and interpretation of the data:
o
—
appropriate use of information sources
formulation of the problem and its causes
Planning of care:
o
formulation of objectives and interventions
o
partnership nurse-client and close relatives
Page 186 de 383
—
Execution of the intervention
—
Evaluation of the procedure :
o
Section 3
17 hours
To rely on a conceptual model in the
performance of one’s duties
(continued)
evaluation criteria
—
Analysis of 10 fundamental needs
—
Attitudes and behaviours linked to the model
Summative examination
Final test
“Refer to a concept in the field —
of nursing to define how you
practice your profession”
Integration of the overall essential content
Source: Nursing Faculty, Cégep de Rimouski, 2001.
Page 187 de 383
Learning tool 5.D
The components and tools of a general evaluation strategy62
A general evaluation strategy relates to the planning of the overall evaluation of learning activities
within a course. Decisions taken in connection with evaluation activities relate to the five following
components:
1. Purpose of the evaluation (Why?)
2. Who is evaluating? (Who?)
3. What is being evaluated (What?)
4. Tasks and tools (How?)
5. Conditions of the evaluation (When? How frequently? How much?)
The general evaluation strategy is the last stage in the planning process of a course. It takes into
account the decisions made during the analysis of the training objective and the division of the
course sections. The consultation of a course presentation (for example, the preliminary draft) and
the description of the course sections (for example, a synoptic overview) in the course plan
facilitate the establishment of a general evaluation strategy.
The following diagram identifies and connects the principal components of a general evaluation
strategy mentioned above.
62
Translated from Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier, Course: Évaluer une compétence, CPE/C Performa, Université
de Sherbrooke, summer 2003.
Page 188 de 383
Relate to
Components
of a general
evaluation
strategy
within a given
course
Bring about
an evaluation
approach that is
— on-going
— diagnostic/formative
— summative
— normative or
criteria-based
(0.2)
Created and
Achieved by
(0.0)
Coherent group
of decisions
(0.1)
Based on
1
2
Purpose of
The EVALUATION
EVALUATORS
(2.0)
(1.0)
with
Determines the
3
OBJECTS to
be EVALUATED
5
TASKS/
TOOLS
(4.0)
(3.0)
specified
by
4
And the
Based on
Criteria/indicators
Contexts
(3.1)
(3.2)
CONDITIONS of
EVALUATION
(5.0)
Relative to
Timeframe for the
evaluation
based on the
progression of
learning
(5.1)
the
Number of
formative
and summative
evaluations
(5.2)
And the
Weight of the
summative
evaluation
activities
(5.3)
Page 189 de 383
Tools for a general evaluation strategy
The following tools are designed to establish and analyze the contents of a general evaluation
strategy:
Tool no 1: Grid to establish a general evaluation strategy.
This grid allows for the recording of all decisions made concerning each of the five components of
the strategy. For each course section, the professor or the team of professors can register the
evaluation activity data concisely:
—
The number of each planned activity. This will make it possible to establish the number of
activities planned for the whole course;
—
The best timeframe to carry out each activity;
—
The principal objects to be evaluated in each activity63;
—
The nature of the task and evaluation tool used in the evaluation of an object or a group of
objects;
—
The purpose of this activity. The type of evaluation to which it corresponds;
—
The weighting of this activity relative to the final grade for the summative evaluation;
—
Identification of the evaluation “agents”: professors, students, and others …
Tool no 2: Example: course: The evaluation of competencies. What does this change in
course planning?
This tool includes an example of a completed grid and the type of information that can be collected
for each component of the strategy.
Tool no 3: Verification questions on the components of an evaluation strategy.
This tool, as its name implies, allows us to validate the content of an evaluation strategy developed
for a course, based on the development of one or more competencies. Questions relate to each
component of the strategy.
Tool no 4: Analysis of the components of a strategy.
This tool allows for a critical analysis of decisions made and listed in tool no 1. The tool lists each
of the components of the strategy, its characteristics and decisions taken according to traditional or
revised views on the evaluation of learning. The teacher or the group is asked to analyze and
comment on its/their decisions using these characteristics.
63
The identification of evaluation criteria and indicators designed to make the objects to be evaluated ‘operational’
generally occurs during the drafting of the evaluation plan (cf. chapter 6) or during the development of the marking
grid. This strategy serves to identify all objects that will be evaluated within the course framework.
Page 190 de 383
Tool no 164
Name:____________ Program:_____________Course name and no: ___________________
Grid to determine the components of a general evaluation strategy
Statement of competency that is targeted or final
integration objective:
Course
section
No
Moment(5.1)
64
Statements of the learning objectives targeted in each of
the course sections:
Evaluation Timeframe Objects to Tasks and Type
of
activity
(week no)
be
evaluation evaluation :
evaluated tools
No
— Diagnostic
(D)
— Formative
(F)
— Summative
(S)
Weighting Evaluators :
(%
of — Professors.
final
(P)
grade)
— Students
(S)
— Others
(specify)
Number
(5.2)
Weighting
(5.3)
Moment
(5.1)
Objects (3.0)
Tasks and
tools (4.0)
Purposes (1.0)
Evaluators (2.0)
Translated from Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier, adapted from a tool developed by Claude Gagnon, educational advisor
at Collège de la Région de l’Amiante, 1996.
Page 191 de 383
Page 192 de 383
Tool no 2
Example: Course: The evaluation of competencies. What does this change in course planning?
Statement of the final integration objective:
Statement of integrating objectives in each section of the course:
To develop a summative evaluation activity that validates the Identify the place and role of the evaluation of learning in instructional planning.
development of the components or the competencies targeted by To elaborate in summary fashion an evaluation plan for one or more competencies.
the course.
Develop a marking grid in connection to the evaluation plan.
Validate the development procedures for the evaluation plan
Course
section
Evaluation
activity
no :
no :
Timeframe
(week no)
The evaluation activity refers to which Evaluation tool(s)
learning skill?
Task(s) required/
Type of evaluation
Weighting
— Diagnostic (D)
(% of final — Professors (P)
grade)
— Students (S)
— Formative (F)
— Summative (S)
1
1
2
Wednesday Individual representation of the
May 5
concept of competency, the
evaluation of learning and
principles connected to the
A.M.
2-A
2-B
— Others (specify)
Feedback following the
formulation of definitions
D/F
-
P/S
Feedback following an exercise
on the principles
F
-
P/S
D
-
P/S
Drafting of a general evaluation
strategy
3
Evaluator
4
Wednesday Development process for an
May 5
evaluation plan
Feedback during and after
presentation of tasks 1 to 6
F
-
P/S
5
P.M.
Drafting of “summary” plan
D/F
-
P/S
6
Thursday
May 6
A.M.
Feedback on work done and the
“summary plan” for evaluation
F
-
P
Development process for an
evaluation plan
Page 193 de 383
Course
section
no :
Evaluation
activity
no :
Timeframe
(week no)
3
7
Thursday
May 6
Process for choosing the evaluation Feedback during and after the
methods
presentation of tasks 7 et 8
A.M.
Development process for a marking Feedback during and after the
grid
presentation of tasks 9 et 10
Thursday
May 6
Development of a general
evaluation strategy
Feedback on the “evaluation
strategy” work
Development of an evaluation plan
for the final course test
Individual feedback and support
regarding the plan that is being
developed
8
4
9
The evaluation activity refers to which
learning skill?
Task(s) required/
Evaluation tool(s)
Type of evaluation
— Diagnostic (D)
— Formative (F)
— Summative (S)
Weighting
(% of
final
grade)
Evaluator
— Professors (P)
— Students (S)
— Others
(specify)
F
-
P/S
F
-
P/S
F
-
P/S
F
-
P/S
P.M.
10
Friday
May 7
A.M.
11
Deadline to Final test: production of an
be
evaluation plan
determined
Final version
S
100 %
P
Page 194 de 383
Tool no 3
Questions that validate the components of a general evaluation strategy65
What is the purpose of evaluations?
— Did the student receive progressive feedback on his performance during the development of the competency?
— What are the respective roles of the formative evaluation and the summative evaluation?
Who does the evaluations?
— Teachers or “authentic” external educators?
— Do the students have the opportunity to evaluate themselves and make corrections?
What objects are evaluated?
— Is knowledge evaluated as much as possible during the resolution of problem cases?
— Does this knowledge encompass all types of knowledge required by the competency (concepts, procedures, cognitive skills, study and
learning procedures)?
What are the evaluation criteria?
— Have the evaluation criteria come directly from the performance criteria relative to the competency?
What is the context?
— Is the evaluation context an “authentic” one?
— Does the context resemble more and more, as the session comes to an end, the realization context described by the ministère?
Which tools are used?
— Were the tools validated for integrity and reliability?
Under what conditions should evaluations be done?
— Are the frequency and timeframe of evaluations a function of competency development related to each course section?
— Is the timeframe for evaluations influenced by the decision to validate the stability of student performance?
— Has the relative weighting of the summative evaluation activities been specified?
— Is information on the objects and conditions of evaluation provided to students?
—
Has the student had the opportunity to implement the competency in question prior to the summative evaluation?
65
Translated from Pôle de l’Est, Processus de planification d’un cours centré sur le développement d’une compétence, regroupement des colleges Performa, 1996, p. 155.
Page 195 de 383
Tool no 4
Analysis of the components of a general evaluation strategy
Components/
According to a
According to the
Comments on your decisions
Decisions
“traditional” viewpoint
“new” viewpoint
(decisions identified using tool no 1)
Ð
Ð
Ð
0.0- (global)
EVALUATION
STRATEGY
0.1 is a coherent set of
decisions applicable to
planning an evaluation
activity in a course
0.2 is characterized by an
evaluation approach
that is:
decisions based on :
decisions based on :
—
the distribution and
spreading out of the
contents over time
—
support for student
learning
—
—
the continuous and
cumulative character of
summative evaluation
activities
certification of the level
of acquisition of the
competency
—
the stages identified for
the development of the
competency
—
continuous, mainly
centered on the
summative evaluation
—
continuous, mainly
centered on the formative
evaluation
—
diagnostic
—
diagnostic
—
sometimes formative
—
mainly formative
—
mainly summative
—
sometimes summative
—
normative (interpretation —
of student results in
relation to each other)
criteria-based
(interpretation of student
results in relation to
performance criteria)
Page 196 de 383
Components/
According to a
According to the
decisions
“new” viewpoint
1.0- PURPOSES OF
EVALUATIONS
Ð
Ð
Ð
(Why evaluate?)
Evaluation based on:
Evaluation based on:
— student rankings
— support for student success
(formative)
o student selection
(certification)
— certification of the level of
success (summative)
2.0- EVALUATORS
Ð
Ð
(Who evaluates?)
— mainly professors
— students
Ð
— colleagues
— population
— workers in the industry and
institutions
— professors
(based
on
relationship?)
what — a relationship with the
student that is external
and ‘hidden’
— a relationship with the
student that is interactive
and open
— making a summative
judgment at end of cycle
Page 197 de 383
Components/
According to a
According to the
decisions
“new” viewpoint
decisions identified using tool no 1)
3.0- THE OBJECTS OF
EVALUATION
Ð
Ð
Ð
3.0 Objects
(What is to be evaluated?)
Relate to:
Relate to:
— mainly theoretical knowledge
— various types of knowledge
— knowledge that is isolated and
taken out of context
— the structure of knowledge
— knowledge that oversimplifies
situations
— knowledge that is mobilized in
the situation
— stable and discriminating
knowledge
call upon:
call upon:
(Which cognitive
processes are required?)
— memorization
— understanding
— application of the knowledge
— the integration and transfer of
knowledge
— student judgment, in context
— the ability to identify and
resolve situations and
problems
Page 198 de 383
Components/
According to a
According to the
Decisions
“new” viewpoint
3.0- THE
OBJECTS OF
EVALUATION
(cont’d)
Ð
Ð
Ð
3.1 Criteria
(To evaluate in
relation to
what?)
— normative approaches
(comparative)
— relationship of the student
to the group
— standard deviation
— standard score
3.2 Context
(How to
evaluate?/
realization
context)
(How to
evaluate?/
Using what
methods?)
— relative to performance
— success with or without
assistance
— analysis of error
— decontextualization of
knowledge
— integration of different
types of knowledge
— breaking down of various
types of knowledge
— the greatest authenticity
possible
— simulated or real context
allowing for identification
and resolution
Ð
4.0- TASKS/
TOOLS
4.0 Type of
tasks/tools
— criteria-based approach
Ð
objective type:
“authentic” type:
— multiple choice
— problem situation
— sentences to complete
— case study, simulation, role
play
— checklist
— observation grid
— open question
Ð
— observation
— questioning during the
process
— oral examination
— portfolio
Page 199 de 383
Components/
According to a
According to the
Decisions
“new” viewpoint
5.0- CONDITIONS OF
EVALUATION
Ð
Ð
Ð
5.1 Determination of the timeframe
for the (summative) evaluation
(When to evaluate?)
According to
—the number of
evaluation objects and
the performance criteria
— the number of weeks
scheduled for the
various sections
5.2 Number of (summative)
evaluations
determined according to
the accumulation of:
(How many times should you
evaluate?)
— acquired knowledge
— exercise of skills
— according to the stages of
development of the
competency(ies)
— placed preferably at the end
of the course sections or after
a learning sequence
— more frequent towards the
end of the course
determined by:
— a sufficient number of
performances or evaluation
tasks attesting to the
development of the
competency(ies)
— stability of the performance
during tasks
— generalization of the
performance during tasks
5.3 Weighting of the evaluations
(summative)
according to total
accumulated in course
sections
— established to guarantee the
stability of the
competency(ies)
— more important for the final
course test
Page 200 de 383
Page 201 de 383
Page 202 de 383
Chapter 6
Procedures for the development of an evaluation test
“How do I evaluate the competencies of my students? How to communicate the results of an evaluation
on competency? How do I make sure that the problem situation chosen to evaluate student competencies
corresponds to the type of situations used during the training?
These are the types of questions, whether general or specific in nature, basic or emanating from deep
reflection, that are on everyone’s mind. The competency-based approach causes teachers to seriously
question the delicate and difficult task of evaluating student competencies, a task which remains
nonetheless inherent to the nature of the work […]
The term “evaluation” seems to include too many different aspects to allow a coherent discussion on the
subject with colleagues or with students. This is why I find it necessary to mention its purpose every time
I use the term. The use of a descriptor will be sufficient for now. Therefore, we will speak more
precisely of:
— Formative evaluation, when it is used to evaluate learning during the training period and regulate
the learning process. On the one hand, a regulation of student learning, when under the teacher’s
guidance, errors are analyzed to identify acquired learning, learning still to be acquired, the learning
process, resolution strategies, and errors in procedure and work methods. On the other hand, a
regulation of the teacher’s instruction includes such things as providing additional exercises,
explaining a rule, correcting student note-taking and providing more time to acquire the leaning;
— A summative evaluation is an evaluation that is done at the end of training. Student performance
will be rated by the professor according to predetermined coefficients, to determine if the student
will succeed or fail in the trimester.”66
To succeed in the evaluation of learning, several questions relative to the “objects of evaluation” must be
answered, notably: What distinguishes the objects of the summative evaluation from those of the
formative evaluation? What should the objects be for a given type of evaluation, a given type of course or
in the comprehensive program assessment? What indicators could be used to identify the objects of
evaluation that are not directly accessible? Answers to these questions are specific for each type of
evaluation, and we can only provide general directions in the search for answers.
66
Translated from Mireille Houart, Évaluer des compétences. Oui, mais… comment?, Département Éducation et Technologie,
FUNDP – Namur, p. 1. [http://www.det.fundp.ac.be/~mho/evaluation.htm].
Page 203 de 383
General steps recommended for an evaluation plan
Activity 6:
Activity 6.1:
The training objective
Activity 6.2:
The objects of evaluation, performance indicators and evaluation
criteria
Activity 6.3:
The evaluation task
Activity 6.4:
The marking grid
Activity 6.5:
Communication of the results
Learning tools:
Learning tool 6.A:
making judgments:
Procedures for developing an evaluation plan and tools for collecting data and
1. Analyze the training objective
1.1 To characterize the training objective
1.2 To formulate the training objective targeted in a course as a final integration objective
2. Select and identify the objects to be evaluated
2.1 To choose the objects of the evaluation or essential learning to be evaluated
2.2 To select indicators that will allow for observation of the demonstration of this learning
2.3 To validate the connection between indicators and the objects of evaluation
2.4 To determine the evaluation criteria, i.e. the components of learning to be evaluated
3. Choose and validate evaluation tasks and tools
3.1 To determine evaluation tasks suitable to the learning to be evaluated
3.2 To specify the realization context of the evaluation task or tasks
3.3 To guarantee the validity and reliability of the tools used
4. Develop the tools for data collection and the evaluation judgment
4.1 To build the tools for the collection of observable data: marking grids and rating scales
4.2 To select judgment and rating methods to apply to student learning
5. Communicate the results and provide students with feedback
Page 204 de 383
Chapter Synopsis:
Learning tool 6.B:
Tasks for the analysis of a training objective
Learning tool 6.C:
Learning tool 6.D:
Tasks to identify objects to be evaluated
Learning tool 6.E:
Tasks appropriate for the evaluation of learning.
Learning tool 6.F:
Description of an authentic situation
Learning tool 6.G:
Learning tool 6.H:
Tasks to build data collection tools
Learning tool 6.I:
Learning tool 6.J:
Task to communicate evaluation results
Documents:
Document 6.A:
The evaluation in authentic situations: tools
Document 6.B:
“Evaluating competencies. Yes, but… how? “
Page 205 de 383
Activity 6
Heading
Evaluation plan for the final course test
Objectives
Identify the procedures for developing an evaluation plan.
Determine prerequisites: training objective, subject matter, objects of
evaluation, indicators and evaluation criteria.
Develop an evaluation plan.
Description
This activity makes it possible to adopt a general approach for planning
evaluations based on the following steps:
—
Analyze the training objective
—
Select and specify the objects to be evaluated
—
Choose and validate the tasks and evaluation tools
—
Develop the tools required for data collection and judgments on
evaluations
—
Communicate the results and provide students with feedback
The application used requires the mobilization of prior concepts and
knowledge relative to the development of an evaluation plan.
Unfolding
Activity 6.1
Training objective
(Tasks 1-2 of procedures for Learning tool 6.A)
A. Presentation, clarification and group exchanges on procedures for
developing an evaluation plan (Tool 6.A): Procedures for developing an
evaluation plan and tools for collecting data and making judgments
B. Analysis of a training objective: it is recommended to use the pedagogical
material brought by the participants. Identify only one competency for the
evaluation plan and only one competency per work team
Learning tool 6.B: Tasks for the analysis of a training objective, Learning
tool 6.C: Tool for the analysis of a competency
Please note — Use the data taken from the general evaluation strategy if the activity
has already been done.
Activity 6.2
The objects of evaluation, performance indicators and evaluation criteria
(Tasks 3-4-5-6 procedures for Tool 6.A)
C. To choose the objects to be evaluated. Refer to Tool 6.D:
Identify the objects to be evaluated. (Task 3)
D. To select indicators that allow for the observation of learning. (Task 4)
E. To validate the connection between the indicators and objects of
Page 206 de 383
evaluation.
(Task 5)
F. To determine the evaluation criteria and the qualities targeted by the
learning to be evaluated. (Task 6)
Activity 6.3
The evaluation task
(Tasks 7-8-9 procedures for Tool 6.A)
G. To determine the appropriate evaluation task or evaluation method. Use
Tool 6.E: Tasks appropriate for the evaluation of learning.
Support documentation for the approach:
Tool 6.F:
Definition of an authentic situation
Tool 6.G:
Support documentation:
Document 6.A:
H. Document 6.B:
“Evaluate competencies. Yes, but… how?”
Personal assessment of learning and sharing of findings with group
Activity 6.4
The marking grid
(Tasks 10-11 procedures for Tool 6.A)
I.
To infer and judge if the student has acquired the necessary learning, to
develop one or more tools for the collection of observable data compiled
in a marking grid.
1.
Presentation, clarification and group exchanges on procedures for
developing a marking grid using Tool 6.H: Tasks to build data
collection tools.
2.
Evaluate a training objective studied in the preceding stages of the
current activity, complete the marking grid recommended in Tool
6.H.
3. Analyze the sample marking grid using Tool 6.I: Sample marking grid
designed at Cégep Saint-Laurent
J.
Personal assessment of learning and sharing of findings with group.
Activity 6.5
Communication of the results
(Task 12 procedures for Tool 6.A)
K. Reading of document, Tool 6.J: Tasks to communicate evaluation results
and provide students with feedback.
L. Exchange and discussion on the repercussions of the evaluation results
relative to the following topics:
— how to communicate the results of the summative evaluation,
— summary of feedback characteristics,
— affective dimension of feedback.
Page 207 de 383
M. Personal assessment of learning and group discussion on differences in:
— attitudes and reactions of the teachers who communicate evaluation
results
— attitudes and reactions of the students who receive evaluation results
Moderator’s role
To create a climate favourable to reflection and discussion.
To make sure the required material is at hand.
To be available to coach the work teams.
To implement all stages of the evaluation plan’s development process.
To help the participants validate their evaluation practices.
To support interaction with other participants.
To apply work processes.
To establish links.
To specify personal choices regarding evaluation practices.
Tool 6.A:
Procedures for developing an evaluation plan and tools for
collecting data and making judgments:
Tool 6.B:
Tasks for the analysis of a training objective
Tool 6.C:
Tool 6.D:
Tasks for identifying objects to be evaluated
Tool 6.E:
Tasks appropriate for the evaluation of learning
Tool 6.F:
The definition of an authentic situation
Tool 6.G:
Tool 6.H:
Tasks to build data collection tools.
Tool 6.I:
Tool 6.J:
Task to communicate evaluation results
Support
documentation
Document 6.A:
Document 6.B:
“Evaluate competencies. Yes, but… how?”
Comments
The complete development of an evaluation plan for a final test in a course
requires time. The activity will be more effective if it is distributed over
several group meetings.
Approximate
duration
Activity 6.1:
2-3 hours, depending on the in-depth level
Activity 6.2:
3 hours
Activity 6.3:
3 hours
Activity 6.4:
3 hours
Activity 6.5:
1 hour
Pedagogical
material
Page 208 de 383
Page 209 de 383
Tool 6.A
Procedures for developing an evaluation plan
and tools to collect data and make judgments
General approach67
Development process
Stage 1: To analyze the training objective
Achievement tasks
1. To characterize the training objective:
1.1. To connect the training objective with the
statement(s)
and
components
of
competency(ies)
identified
by
the
ministerial specifications.
1.2. To formulate, if need be, the targeted
training objective in the course as a final
integration objective.
2. To determine the nature and role of this
training objective.
Stage 2: To choose and specify the objects to be 3. To choose the objects of the evaluation or
essential learning to be evaluated.
evaluated
4. To select indicators that make it possible for
the demonstration of learning to be observed.
5. To validate the connection between the
indicators and objects of evaluation.
6. To determine the evaluation criteria or required
qualities of the learning to be evaluated.
Stage 3: To choose and validate the evaluation 7. To determine the appropriate evaluation task(s)
tasks
for the learning to evaluate.
8. To identify the achievement context of
evaluation task(s).
9. To guarantee the validity and reliability of the
tools used.
Stage 4: To develop tools to collect data and make 10. To build the tools for the collection of
a judgment on the evaluation
observable data: marking grids and rating
scales.
11. To select judgment and rating methods to apply
to student learning.
Stage 5: To communicate the results and provide 12. To communicate the results of the summative
students with feedback
evaluations;
To provide students with feedback.
67
Approach developed by Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier within the scope of a training activity dealing with the
assessment of a competency, Collège de Valleyfield, CPE/C Performa, Université de Sherbrooke, 2001.
Page 210 de 383
Evaluation plan
Competency:
Analysis of the training objective (nature, role, connection to the objectives of other courses)
Objects of evaluation
Indicators of learning (process, product, Evaluation criteria
(essential learning)
speech, attitude)
Evaluation task(s)
(qualities, characteristics)
The realization context
(evaluation methods)
Page 211 de 383
Tool 6.B
Tasks for the analysis of a training objective68
Task 1:
Characterize the training objective
To characterize this objective, we must:
1. Connect the course’s training objective to the statement(s) and components of competency(ies)
identified in the ministerial specifications.
The analysis of the training objective is the first stage in the development of an evaluation tool for the
course. The training objective targeted in a course refers in whole or in part to the statement(s) and
components of the competencies identified in the ministerial specifications.
This stage implies the comparison of the training objectives of the course to the ministerial
statement(s) of competencies targeted by the course.
There are two possible scenarios:
A. The training objective comprises only one competency:
— if a single competency is developed in the course (1 competency = 1 course),
— if certain components of a single competency are developed (1 competency = several
courses),
Thus the training objective generally corresponds to the statement of competency described in
the ministerial specifications and refers to some or all the components of this statement.
B. The training objective encompasses several competencies:
— if several components from different competencies are developed (N competencies =
N courses),
— if several competencies are developed in the same course (N competencies = 1 course),
Thus the training objective becomes a final integration objective.
The teachers responsible for drafting the course’s framework plan generally formulate this
objective during the program development stage.
2. Formulate the course’s training objective as a final integration objective, if need be.
In the case where a training objective with an integrating nature was not formulated during the
program development, it is possible to include it in the course planning stage. The formulation of a
final integration objective proves to be necessary to bring together competencies or parts of
competencies that are targeted in a course. This approach makes it possible to respect the final,
multidimensional and integrating character of a competency. The following page presents the
characteristics of a final integration objective.
68
Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier, Activité de perfectionnement portant sur l’évaluation d’une compétence, Collège de
Valleyfield, CPE/C Performa, Université de Sherbrooke, Summer of 2003.
Page 212 de 383
Characteristics of a final integration objective or an integrating objective69
“In training determined by its results,
based on competency development,
built through a curricular approach,
and organized around a program approach,
each course must target a final integration objective.
Every objective points to a change or development. It identifies the nature and orientation, the content,
the implications and impact. It is similar to an integrating objective:
by nature, it is a high level objective: it relates to the development of abilities to understand in depth, to
compare, analyze, reason, resolve problems, make decisions, perform complex actions, make critical
judgments, communicate, cooperate, demonstrate and take charge of one’s evolution;
its orientation is that of integration and competency: personal integration of the subject matter,
transfer of knowledge when performing actions, development of the potential to intervene in an adapted
and effective way;
its content is multidimensional: intellectual development, cognitive development, psychomotor and
technical development, socioaffective development;
its scope is delineated by precisions on the field or fields of learning, the types of learning situations, the
learning context and the implementation of learning, as well as the results targeted by the learning;
its impact is defined by the expectations regarding the demonstration of this integration or competency.
The achievement of a final integration objective or objective of competency requires:
the acquisition of knowledge, skills, personal conduct and their integration in knowledge to think,
knowledge to act and knowledge to be;
the capacity to intervene in an autonomous, adequate and effective way;
when in a specific role and relative to a specific field or area of intervention, when we have
delegated responsibilities,
when faced with problem situations …
we must carry out activities and tasks so we can analyze, explain and transform them.”
Usually, the wording of the final integration objective is identical or inspired by one or more of the
competencies targeted in the course. If a competency spans more than one course or if a course
contributes to the development of more than one competency, the final integration objective should
correspond to a meaningful part of that(those) competency(ies) and respect its(their) nature.
69
Translated from François Vasseur and others, L’”objectif intégrateur”, “Journée pédagogique portant sur l’élaboration d’un
système d’évaluation des apprentissages dans le cadre de la nouvelle PIEA”, 1998, p. 15.
Page 213 de 383
First example of an analysis of a training objective
Training objective: “To draft French texts”.
To draft French texts, more precisely abstracts, the student must be able to:
—
analyze the mandate
—
analyze the original text, according to a specific method
—
develop a drafting plan
—
reformulate the essence of the original text
—
structure and write a faithful abstract
—
apply grammar, spelling and syntax rules
Although certain rules relating to the analysis of the mandate, the structure of the texts and the application
of grammar, spelling, syntax and typographic rules are common to all written texts. This competency
opens the door to several writing concepts used in courses such as the minutes of meeting, reviews, press
releases, reports, internal newsletters, etc.
Initially the course will propose a thorough review of key grammar rules essential for the mastery of the
language in question. Then, as concepts are reviewed, they will be applied within simple phrases followed
by complex phrases, then paragraphs and, finally, texts such as abstracts.
Second example of an analysis of a training objective
(refers to several competencies)
The course Algorithmique et Programmation I introduces students to problem-solving, algorithms and
programming.
This course targets competency 016W – Produire des algorithmes (To develop algorithms) and,
secondarily, competency 016S – Exploiter un langage de programmation structure (To use a
structured programming language) and 016X – Produire une interface utilisateur (To develop a
user interface). Components of the two secondary competencies developed in the course act as pillars for
the competency of developing algorithms, they allow the student to apply his algorithms to a
programming language and to complete the analysis and development until the validation of the program.
This course is the first course in the “analysis and development” axis and has no prerequisites. It is a basic
course for all programming courses and a prerequisite for the course Algorithmique et Programmation II.
This course will allow the student to put into practice problem solving using an analytical approach and a
procedure to develop algorithms to produce a program. The programming environment is the Delphi
oracle, chosen for its ease of acquisition and its degree of correspondence with the selected algorithmic
approach. The student will then use simple debugging procedures and program validation.
Page 214 de 383
Clarification of a competency
The competency To develop algorithms is one of the stages in the process of analysis and development,
one of the tasks of the computer technician. The first stage relates to problem analysis and the gathering
of elements to resolve it. The second stage consists in sectioning the problem into modules and then
applying a gradually refined algorithm to each of these modules. These algorithms must be validated
through manual execution. The next stage consists in translating these algorithms into a programming
language. The resulting program will then have to be debugged and validated to reach a final product.
To help the student get a better grasp of the algorithm’s production stage and its connection to analysis
and programming, the course will include components of the two secondary competencies Exploiter un
langage de programmation structurée (To use a structured programming language) and Produire une
interface utilisateur (To develop a user interface) so students will not only understand the algorithm but
also realistically validate the results of their work.
Problems presented to the student will be simple enough to allow him to slowly acquire an analytical
approach and to continue this training in the course Algorithmique et Programmation II by working on
more complex problems. The competencies in this course are a prerequisite for the knowledge and skills
required for the tasks in Design and development of computer applications.
Page 215 de 383
Task 2:
Determine the nature and role of this training objective
Determination of the nature and the role of the training objective targeted in a course is based on the
analysis of ministerial documents70 that identify the competency(ies) to be developed in the course.
This analysis is generally included in the documents written at the end of the elaboration process of a
local study program (general plan, local program specifications). Examples of this type of analysis are
found below. They are guides to instructional planning. Tool 6.C is used to analyze a competency.
These analyses are also used to direct planning activities for the evaluation of learning based on
competency development. In this context, an analysis of the nature and role of the training objective is
done to guide the different tasks carried out for developing an evaluation activity.
The following table suggests questions to better grasp and complete the analysis of the training objective.
Questions for the analysis of the
training objective
Links to the tasks for developing an evaluation
71
activity
1. Concerning the nature of the training
objective
Analysis of the statement of competency(ies)
developed in the course
—
For each statement of competency:
— What is the essential learning targeted by each —
statement? Which learning skill will become
an object to be evaluated?
— What kind of production does each
competency require?
— What type of process or approach does it
require?
Choice of objects to be evaluated
Selection of indicators (product, process,
speech)
Analysis of the components of a competency
For each statement of competency:
—
— What is the essential learning targeted by each —
statement? What learning skill will become an —
object to be evaluated?
— What actions must the student be able to
perform for his mastery of essential learning to
be validated?
— What resources must the student mobilize to
succeed in performing the required actions?
Selection of indicators
Mobilization of resources to
evaluation tasks
carry
out
70
Index cards show competencies written as objectives and standards.
71
This can be connected to one or more competencies identified in the ministerial specifications. The analysis of components
relating to objectives and standards must take into account the connection between components.
Page 216 de 383
Analysis of the realization context
—
According to ministerial definition:
— Which contexts could be taken into account —
when developing evaluation situations?
— What are the conditions and what support and
assistance will be provided to the student
during the evaluation?
Determination of evaluation tasks
Clarification of the realization context
Analysis of the performance criteria
According to performance criteria:
— What qualities or characteristics must we rely
on in order to judge accomplishments during
the realization of evaluation tasks?
— Which performance criteria are most closely
connected to the evaluation tasks?
— Which ministerial performance criteria can be
regrouped?
— What performance criteria must be refined or
adapted to the nature of the evaluation tasks?
—
—
—
—
—
Determination of evaluation criteria
Selection of indicators
Determination of evaluation task(s)
2. Role of the training objective
Analyze information contained in general plans
and local program specifications
According to information on the role of the course —
in the study program:
— What is the chronological position of the —
course relative to the development of the
competency(ies) targeted by the training
objective?
— At the beginning? At the end?
— If the course contributes to the development of
more than one competency, what exactly does
the course contribute to the development of
each competency?
Choice of objects to be evaluated (minimum
requirements)
According to decisions made by the development —
team:
— What is the extent of learning in the course?
— Are there expectations, minimum requirements
for the learning to achieve in the course?
— Does the proposed learning constitute a final
stage in a course or program?
— Does the recommended learning represent a
stage in the training program?
Choice of objects to be evaluated (minimum
requirements)
Page 217 de 383
Example of an analysis of the training objective
Program: Nursing
Competency targeted: 01Q3:
“To refer to a concept in nursing to define one’s professional practice.”
Course presentation:
—
This course is presented at the beginning of the nursing care program. It targets competency
01Q3 “To refer to a concept in nursing to define one’s professional practice”, the first competency
on the “Work Processes” training axis. It is a prerequisite for all other nursing courses in
subsequent trimesters.
—
It allows the student to acquire knowledge in nursing in order to intervene in various care giving
contexts.
—
This competency enables the student to develop his concept of the person and health care in his
professional practice and to resolve problems in nursing with the help of work-related problem
resolution processes.
Clarification of the competency:
—
This course targets the socialisation process as regards the profession. The competency relates to
the basics of professional practice: concept of the person, health care and the nursing environment.
Additionally, it requires reference to the Virginia Henderson care model and the adoption of a care
giving approach.
Competency: 01Q3 ”To refer to a concept in nursing to define one’s professional practice”
Objects of evaluation
Learning indicators
— Adoption of attitudes and
behaviours in agreement with the
model
Reference to the
Virginia Henderson
conceptual model
— Use of work tools in agreement
with the model
Adopting
approach
a
care
giving
— Implementation of the stages of a
care giving approach:
o
Data collection
o
Analysis and interpretation of
data
Planning of care:
formulation of objectives
and interventions
partnership between the
nurse / the client and his
close relatives
— Evaluation of the approach
o
Evaluation criteria
— Obvious demonstration
of pertinent attitudes
— Correct use of the tools
— Stringent respect
— Adequate use of
information sources
— Accurate formulation of
problems and their
causes
— Suitable formulation
— Adapted communication
— Adequate use of
evaluation criteria
Page 218 de 383
The realization context:
— Based on a conceptual model of the nursing discipline
— With the help or work tools and reference works
— Using terminology proper to the discipline and to health sciences
Evaluation methods:
Refer initially to the teaching approach that directs the choice of evaluation methods:
—
The approach used in this course will gradually bring the student to acquire and integrate various
concepts of professional practice. For that purpose, various concepts will be introduced using
presentations, group discussions and reflection. Moreover, the labs will allow for the use of the
problem solving process using case studies, problem-based learning, role-play and practical
exercises.
—
Given the nature of the competency, the course will deal in part with the experience of using a
care giving approach in simple situations.
—
In subsequent sessions, the student will be encouraged to develop his mastery of using a care
giving approach in a variety of increasingly complex contexts.
Means selected:
1. Case study (simple situation)
2. Simulation in the lab: care giving approach: to carry out data collection
Page 219 de 383
Tool 6.C
Tool for the analysis of a competency72
Dimensions →
Document ↓
Nature
How does the ministère define the
competency?
Role
Contribution
How and where does this competency How does the competency
fit within the whole of the training?
contribute to training in the
program?
Ministerial description of the
competency (objective /
standard index card)
—
Statement of competency
What is the student’s capacity to act as What competencies are acquired What previous difficulties can the
described by the action verb?
concurrently?
acquisition of this competency
resolve?
Is the object or product of the action To what other competencies is this This competency enables us to
designated as direct object?
competency closely linked? With introduce what changes to student
what other competencies can the training?
competency be grouped?
To which fields of knowledge is the What are the competencies with
capacity
for
action
connected? which this competency forms a
Cognitive/psychomotor /socioaffective? sequence?
At what taxonomic level do we find the Are there one or more competencies
capacity for action?
that are absolute prerequisites for
this competency?
To what family of situations is the In which other competencies is the
capacity for action connected? Work, learning that was acquired for this
training, life situation?
competency reinvested? In what
way?
72
Translated from Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier, Activité de perfectionnement portant sur l’évaluation d’une compétence, Collège de Sherbrooke, CPE/C Performa,
Université de Sherbrooke, Summer 2002.
Page 220 de 383
Dimensions →
Nature
competency?
Tools ↓
Role
Contribution
How and where does this competency How does the competency
fit within the whole of the training?
contribute to training in the
program?
—
Refer to action verbs and
direct objects.
Validate these details according to
the data in AST and the table of
correspondence.
—
Also refer to realization
context and performance
criteria.
—
Components
competency
of
What details does the information
contained in these documents provide on
the skills, knowledge and attitudes
mobilized by the competency?
the What is the importance, depth and
extent of each component relative to the
development of the competency?
Do the components include:
— The stages of acquisition of the
competency (the process)?
— The
components
of
the
competency
(mini-tasks
or
products)?
Page 221 de 383
Dimensions →
Tools↓
Nature
competency?
—
Realization context
Under what conditions can the
competency be demonstrated:
— environment (location, milieu...)?
— the context (starting from…)?
— the clientele (for/to whom...)?
— level of autonomy (as an
individual, in a team, in
collaborative work...)?
— support offered to students (to
assist): tools, learning activities,
references?
— limitations (on..., for..)?
— rules to be respected?
What is the time and place for this
demonstration of competency?
— During training, on the final test,
at the end of the training?
Page 222 de 383
Dimensions →
Tools ↓
Nature
competency?
—
Performance criteria
—
Refer to nouns for indicators What are the essential criteria for
evaluating the acquisition of elements of
the competency?
Refer to adjectives for the
required
performances — What are the indicators or the
aspects to be observed?
(criteria)
— What
are
the
required
performances?
—
What information on the contents is
provided by the criteria?
— Knowledge, skills, attitudes?
—
Learning activities
What information is available on:
— administrative details (title,
weighting, units, prerequisite
studies)?
— essential content?
Page 223 de 383
Tool 6.D
Task 3:
Identify the essential objects and/or essential learning to be
evaluated73
In the case of a summative evaluation on the achievement of a training objective that is competencybased, we must identify the learning to be evaluated. In the assessment of competencies, this learning is
integrative and multidimensional by nature.
Learning74 can deal with:
—
“Learning models and representations of reality that the student develops and integrates by
acquiring knowledge, adapting it, deepening his knowledge and relating it to situations in the
workplace or a given field;
—
ways of analyzing and interpreting situations and problems;
—
the capacity to act in a procedural fashion that the student develops and integrates by
acquiring work techniques, psychomotor skills, control of instruments, by automating and
connecting them to each other and to situations in a given domain or field of intervention;
—
steps, strategies, procedures for problem resolution and management of one’s interventions;
—
personal behaviours and attitudes that the student has developed and integrated by being put
in control of his own learning, dealing with problem situations, communication, cooperation
and responsibility;
—
conduct that is cultural, social and professional.”
Examples of objects of essential learning:
—
Establishment of communication adapted to the needs of the client and his family
—
Communication of care-giving information to the care-giving team and other healthcare
professionals in the field
—
Resolution of nursing problems using a scientific approach
—
Collection and compilation of forestry information and data using computer tools
—
Analysis of bio-physiological data and management constraints in forest management
—
Use of adequate terminology and good grammar in drafting a technical report
The analysis of the elements of competency provides useful and pertinent information in determining
the objects of learning. Validation of mastery over this learning is connected to:
—
The goals and training objectives (cf. Ministerial specifications, exit profile, competency,
objective or final integration objectives for each course, etc.);
— The contribution they make to a further stage of the training (either within the current course or
in a subsequent course).
For those who prefer a different approach to the classification of learning, a typology developed at
Cégep de La Pocatière is outlined below.
73
Translated from Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier, Activité de perfectionnement portant sur l’évaluation d’une compétence,
Collège de Valleyfield, CPE/C Performa, Université de Sherbrooke, Summer 2003.
74
The typology suggested here is translated from François Vasseur and others, “Journée pédagogique portant sur l’élaboration
d’un système d’évaluation des apprentissages dans le cadre de la nouvelle PIEA”, 1998, p. 16-17.
Page 224 de 383
The dimensions of learning75
Dimensions
Examples of objects
in nursing care
Types of objects of learning
Knowledge to —
think
knowledge of various fields and domains, of — PPS, drugs, digestive system
learning models and representations of reality,
…
ways of analyzing and interpreting cases and — Approach to care giving, care
problems
giving models…
— Data collection during the
patient’s initial evaluation,
during clinical monitoring…
Knowledge to —
act
—
Knowledge to —
become
— motivation, commitment to
the task…
— stress management, …
— attentive to patient
characteristics, …
— cooperation with the work
team
— punctuality, honesty,
confidentiality
capacity for procedural action in real life,
work procedures, psychomotor skills, mastery
of instruments
— steps, strategies, procedures
o problem resolution
o intervention management

planning

achievement

evaluation
personal behaviour and attitudes in a situation
requiring:
o assuming control for training
o confronting problem situations
o communication
o cooperation
o exercising responsibility
— conduct that is cultural, social and
professional
75
report, administering
medication, …
— displacement of patient,
injections
— verification of
solutions/serums
— intervention in various types
of clinical situations and
contexts:
o promoting prevention
o therapeutic process
o medical rehabilitation
and quality of life
Table translated from François Vasseur and others, “Journée pédagogique portant sur l’élaboration d’un système
d’évaluation des apprentissages dans le cadre de la nouvelle PIEA”, ITA de La Pocatière, 1998, p. 16 and 17.
Page 225 de 383
Other examples of key learning classified according to
the typology in use at Cégep de La Pocatière
Knowledge to think:
— To plan the drafting of various types of texts;
— To organize the required information, collected beforehand, in order to write an informative text;
— To reflect and develop a personal thesis relative to a problem or a given subject;
— To plan and structure a report;
— To connect certain communication situations;
— To develop, as the sender, communication that is clear and adapted to the situation at hand;
— To self-evaluate texts by adopting the recipient’s perspective;
— To recognize personal, linguistic, socio-cultural and contextual factors that enrich and limit
written communication.
Knowledge to act:
— To write various types of texts;
— To read various types of texts;
— To seek information;
— To use verbal and para-verbal components judiciously;
— To develop a work project plan;
— To correct errors relative to the code;
— To orally present a written work or research results;
— To locate certain formal elements within a text;
— To identify the macro- and microstructure of a text.
Knowledge to become:
— To take control of one’s learning;
— To manage work periods within a learning process;
— To be concerned with the quality of work carried out; stringency and rigour
— To be autonomous in the execution of certain tasks;
— To be receptive to feedback on exercises carried out.
Page 226 de 383
Task 4:
Select indicators that will allow for the observable demonstration of
learning
Learning acquired by a person is not directly observable. To be able to judge its existence, we must have
access to observable demonstrations. By observable demonstrations, we mean behaviours, actions,
comments, processes and productions that make it possible, when the student is required to accomplish a
task, to infer the learning or competencies, which are the target of evaluation.
Observable demonstrations can be classified into three types of indicators:
process:
how the student behaves when put in a situation where he must act: procedure,
technique, method, etc.;
product:
what the student grasps when put in a situation where he must act: object, image,
construction, etc.;
speech:
what the student says when put in a situation where he must justify, explain, present,
critique, etc., whether orally or in writing
The process used by the student to resolve the problem and the product or result he achieves, are two
types of indicators of his capacity to use and apply his learning. The speech, written or oral reveals what
he has acquired (his knowledge in memory) and his awareness of this knowledge.
Examples of indicators:
in reference to the process: “use of a recognized budgetary planning approach”;
in reference to the product: “presentation of the data and results in table formats”;
in reference to speech: “an explanation of a small company’s economic operations”.
Object: Resolution of nursing problems based on a scientific approach
Indicators for this object:
—
Data collection according to the Virginia Henderson model and in conformity with the
client’s condition
—
Analysis and interpretation of the client’s case based on scientific knowledge and in relation
to other health problems
—
Identification and formulation of the nursing diagnosis based on the taxonomy provided by
the North American Nursing Diagnosis, Montreal chapter (ANADIM)
—
Planning and execution of interventions adapted to the client’s situation and consistent with
the implemented approach
—
Evaluation of the approach used
Object: Collection and compilation of forestry information and data using computer tools
Indicators for this object:
—
Locating the property
—
Analysis of the photographs of different lots
—
Evaluation of the areas
—
Identification of plantings
—
Production of a plan of the lot, identifying the various plantings
An evaluation based on indicators must specify the properties, characteristics and qualities of the
indicators. These are the evaluation criteria.
Page 227 de 383
LEARNING INDICATORS AND THEIR CRITERIA
The integration
of learning
occurs
Internalization
Externalization
Integratio
no of
knowledge
The integration
of acquired knowledge
into one’s practice
Linked to
Linked to
f
feedback
organization
personal awareness of the
aquisiton
actions taken
and their justification
observable
based on
observable
based on
Three types of indicators
1
Process
Approach, procedure
method
2
evaluated
based on criteria
- relevance of choices
- stringency
- effectiveness of the approach
example
exact use of a
budgetary planning
approach
3
Product
Result of action taken
and
evaluated
based on criteria
-
- relevance
- effectiveness
-quality
example
relevant presentation of
data in table format
and
Speech
What the student says
or writes
evaluated
based on criteria
- clarity
- coherence
- accuracy (strength and weaknesses)
- integration of acquired knowledge
-scope
example
coherent explanation of
the process used
Translated from Pierre Deshaies,
November 1998.
Page 228 de 383
Task 5:
evaluated
Validate the connection between indicators and objects to be
To complete the selection of indicators, the teacher or teaching team must validate the connection
between the indicators and the essential learning to be evaluated.
The following questions can guide this validation exercise:76
— Do all the indicators reveal what we want to evaluate? To what degree?
— Are the indicators the same or are there different types?
o
Process
o
Product
o
Speech
— When we observe a student’s demonstration, to what extent can the indicator infer that he has
effectively acquired the desired learning?
— Does each indicator provide information on the object being evaluated in its totality and all its
complexity or only on a more or less important part of it?
— For each object being evaluated, can we limit ourselves to one or more selected indicators or is it
preferable to use several indicators? If yes, which ones?
Page 229 de 383
Task 6:
Determine the evaluation criteria and sought-after qualities of the
learning to be evaluated
To make an evaluation requires the precision of criteria (qualities) relative to the indicators used for
dimensions of the targeted learning. The criteria relate to the expected qualities of the learning we want to
evaluate. They must be highly consistent with what was pursued and taught.
Qualities usually sought after:
for the processes:
—
procedural method used
—
relevance
—
stringency
—
creativity
—
effectiveness
—
…
for the products:
—
relevance
—
effectiveness
—
quality
—
realism
—
…
for speech:
—
clarity
—
coherence
—
relevance
—
accuracy of topic and choice of terms
—
…
Examples:
—
exact use of a recognized approach for budgetary planning
—
effective representation of the data and results in table format
—
explanation of a small company’s economic operations
—
accurate identification by the student of problem cases
—
explicit modeling of situations using pertinent concepts
—
implementation of an explicit resolution process
—
effective problem resolution
—
accurate analysis of results, data and situations
—
justified self-evaluation
Page 230 de 383
—
highlighting of personal examples
—
justified criticism of an inaccurate performance
—
correct relationship between the components of the case
—
correct relationship between the concepts and procedures
—
pertinent use of knowledge in real life cases
—
appropriate adaptation of procedures to new case situations
—
richness of concepts, procedures and attitudes displayed
—
…
Page 231 de 383
Tool 6.E
Task 7:
Determine appropriate tasks77 for the evaluation of learning
Having identified the targeted indicators and qualities, the teacher or teaching team then develops one of
the evaluation tasks for the objects described.
When it comes to evaluating competencies, the evaluation tasks are generally complex and call upon
several types of knowledge and resources. They are authentic insofar as the realization context is as close
as possible to situations in real life, higher studies or the workplace.
These tasks must be developed for the purpose of soliciting “observable demonstrations” of learning by
the student. They must also make it possible to collect data relating to the indicators and to the selected
criteria.
The development of a complex evaluation task generally includes:
—
a description of the initial situation;
—
instructions relative to actions that will be undertaken;
—
precise details as to expected results and presentation methods for the results78.
If the evaluation of an object includes more than one task, it is necessary to consider the arrangement of
these tasks and the realization context (cf. task 8).
Examples of complex tasks that students are required to carry out79:
—
Structuring a set of data, concepts, techniques, etc. (in a table, diagram, etc.)
—
Production of a plan (plan of a text, a research plan, intervention plan in a professional field, etc.)
—
Analysis, interpretation of results, data, etc., according to a context, based on a theoretical
framework, etc.
—
Inductive, deductive reasoning
—
Developing arguments
—
Critical analysis
—
Writing different types of texts
—
Producing a summary on a theme, based on various sources
—
—
Research: problematics, methodology, data collection, data processing, interpreting results, etc.
Intervention with a person or group of persons: analysis of the situation, determining problematics,
planning the intervention, carrying out the intervention, use of technical resources, evaluating the
results of the intervention
Problem resolution
Evaluating a process or production in a given domain or field of activity
Public presentation (performance, sports, presentation, etc.)
Composition, creation
—
—
—
—
77
Translated by Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier, Activité de perfectionnement portant sur l’évaluation d’une compétence,
Collège de Valleyfield, CPE/C Performa, Université de Sherbrooke, summer 2003.
78
For example, to develop a typical complex ‘problem situation’ task, refer to the chart presented and the problem situation
examples in Pôle de l’Est, Processus de planification d’un cours centré sur le développement de compétences, p. 91, 1996,
p. 303-305.
79
List of complex tasks generally required of students in D’Amour and others, L’évaluation des apprentissages au collégial :
du cours au programme, Fascicule III-IV, 2e volet-Doc. D1.2b, Avenues quant au comment faire. Comment faire
l’évaluation des apprentissages? Comment faire l’animation pédagogique sur ce thème?, 1997.
Page 232 de 383
The choice and development of evaluation tasks must respect as much as possible the criteria of
integration and authenticity and focus on the competency. In relation to the situations in which the
evaluation tasks will be carried out, Mitchell (1989)80 suggests the following process:
—
Begin by identifying tasks that can be carried out in real situations (ex.: work placement, probation
environment, etc.);
—
If real situations are not possible, choose sample situations that relate to real tasks (ex.: partial work
placement, laboratory, role play, projects, etc.);
—
If it is not possible to select situations characterized by a ‘quasi real’ context, evaluate the student’s
performance in simulated situations (ex.: problem situations, placing in context, case study,
authentic problems, etc.) by evaluating when knowledge is used to solve problems or deal
concretely with situations (in depth treatment).
Continuum of appropriate tasks for evaluating a competency
Less appropriate
tasks
—
—
More appropriate
tasks
Multiple
—
choice
—
True or false
Exercises
Simple
problem
—
—
—
Open
questions
Problems
Essays
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Problem
situations
Analyses
Projects
Case study
Simulation
Role play
Production
—
—
—
Portfolio
Integrated
strategy
Set
of
interventions
within
a
training
period
Reasoning (rational)
Evaluation of
isolated
knowledge
Evaluation of
isolated skills
Risk of knowledge —
and skills
—
remaining isolated
—
Integration
Authenticity
Focus on
the competency
Evaluation system
based on the
integration of
knowledge, its
development and
the evaluation of
the competency in
its totality
Translated from Pôle de lest, Processus de planification centré sur le développement d’une compétence, 1996, p. 163.
80
Adapted from L. Mitchell, “Evaluation of competency”, quoted by J. Burke, Competency Based Education and Training,
NY, The Palmer Press, 1989.
Page 233 de 383
Task 8:
Specify the realization context for tasks used to evaluate learning
These are the conditions and context relating to the type of test used to evaluate a competency. The
realization context makes it possible to accurately define and understand the scope of the competency or
each of the targeted competencies. It contributes to setting the limits and understanding the degree of
required complexity.
The realization context specifies:
—
on what to base the exercise of the competency
—
what to use to help exercise the competency
—
in what environment to exercise the competency
Examples:
Carry out an artistic production:
—
Individually
—
As part of a practical test
—
Within a creative or interpretive context
—
Based on fundamental language elements or techniques appropriate to the method employed
—
Using all available tools that could prove necessary
Treat a topical subject in an interdisciplinary perspective:
—
Individually
—
Based on an imposed subject or subject of choice (free selection)
—
In a scientific essay (1,500 to 2,000 words)
—
In a oral or written report
—
Using all pertinent reference manuals
Decisions relating to the determination of the realization context impact the choice of evaluation tasks.
These decisions take into account the minimal requirements established when the objects of evaluation
are selected.
Page 234 de 383
Task 9:
Assure the validity and reliability of tools used
The validity and reliability of evaluation tools
The last stage of developing an evaluation consists of assuring the validity and reliability of the
instruments to be used.
Validity of an evaluation tool
We satisfy the validity of content requirements by presenting students with situations, tasks or problems
that are as representative as possible of the competencies described in the exit profile for their study
program and that correspond to the minimal entry-level requirements in the labour market or university.
Ecological validity, the character of an experiment or an evaluation that takes place in a normal
environment, has a sufficient duration to correspond to real practice and calls into play behaviour that is
significantly representative of what is required of a novice on the labour market or at university.
(Tremblay, G., 1994)
The validity of an evaluation tool must be questioned: does the instrument measure what it claims to
measure? When evaluating a competency, a tool will be all the more valid:
—
if the evaluation situation forces students to use rich and pertinent knowledge;
—
if the evaluation context is similar to an authentic context;
—
if the student must use in-depth analysis of problem situations
—
if the problem presented gives the student an opportunity to demonstrate what he has truly
developed in terms of competency;
—
if the evaluation criteria are similar to those in real life (they result from an analysis of the targeted
competency).
Reliability of an evaluation tool
This refers to a tool’s ability to measure with the same accuracy each time it is administered.
(Legendre, R., 1993) The reliability of an instrument is determined by asking: Is a student who is
declared competent (or non-competent) following an evaluation really competent (or non-competent)? An
evaluation will be more reliable if the evaluation performed does not vary from one teacher to another and
if the judgment rendered proves accurate over the medium term. It is highly beneficial to:
—
verify the total competency in diverse situations (performances);
—
develop detailed evaluation scales;
—
assure that criteria and evaluations among teachers are comparable;
—
use exemplary performances to identify the criteria;
—
make sure that judgments are rendered by teachers entitled to do so;
—
ensure assimilation of the criteria by the teacher and the student;
—
require justification with regard to the conceptual and procedural knowledge of the performances
and decisions (provides clues on the generalization required for a competency);
—
use student perception as a reliability index (if the students feel that the evaluation is unfair, that it
deals with details, that it was ‘a surprise’, etc., then we should question its reliability);
—
compare long-term performances with performance in real-life situations (training period, work
place, university, etc.) or other performances over the long term.
It is not necessary to use all these means, but rather to choose certain among them to assure the reliability
and validity of our instruments.
Page 235 de 383
Page 236 de 383
Tool 6.F
Description of an authentic situation
In recent educational writings, we often find the expression “authentic evaluation”. The authentic
evaluation refers to the characteristics and context of the evaluation task. In an authentic evaluation the
student demonstrates his mastery of the competency as directly as possible. He does this in context and
based on tasks, with significant similarities to real situations that call the competency in question into
play.
This authenticity of task and context can manifest itself in various ways: stimuli, the complexity of the
task, the time allotted for accomplishing the task, accessible resources, the amount of control the student
has over the task realization process, quality and performance criteria, requirements, consequences, etc.
Wiggins (1999)81 offers certain suggestions for making an evaluation situation an authentic one:
1.
it must deal with important questions and problems that are stimulating and valid, students must use
their knowledge to achieve performances in an effective and creative manner;
2.
it incorporates characteristics of real-life situations facing “professionals”;
3.
it requires that the student accomplish non-routine tasks involving various types of “real problems”;
4.
it requires that the student realize a concrete production or performance;
5.
it is evaluated based on clear criteria or standards that students understand;
6.
it can involve interactions between the evaluator and the person being evaluated (providing
assistance, clues, resources, etc.);
7.
it requires that the student deal with both the process and the product, as both impact the student’s
quality of work;
8.
it promotes an opportunity for students to demonstrate creative and personal skills;
9.
it provides enough clues to make the situation seem “real”, without giving away too much
information on “resolving” the situation.
81
Adapted from Grant Wiggins, “The case for authentic assessment”, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, vol. 2,
no 2, 1999. [http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp? v=2&n=2].
Page 237 de 383
Characteristics of an authentic situation82
—
The evaluation contains only contextualized tasks.
—
The evaluation deals with complex problems.
—
The evaluation must contribute to the further development of student competencies.
—
The evaluation requires the functional use of disciplinary knowledge.
—
There is no arbitrarily determined time constraint during the evaluation of competencies.
—
The task and its requirements are known prior to the evaluation situation.
—
The evaluation requires some form of peer collaboration.
—
Marking takes into account the student’s cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
—
Marking takes into account only major errors in a perspective of building competencies.
—
Marking criteria are determined on the basis of the cognitive requirements of targeted
competencies.
—
Self-evaluation is a part of the evaluation process.
—
The marking criteria are numerous and provide extensive information on competencies assessed.
82
Adapted from Grant P. Wiggins, “Teaching to the (Authentic) Test”, Educational Leadership, vol. 46, nº 7, 1989, p. 41-50.
Page 238 de 383
Here is how some authors summarize the characteristics of this type of evaluation*:
—
The authentic evaluation is integrated in the learning.
—
It is administered via problem situations that:
—
resemble real life
—
integrate several disciplines
—
include obstacles
—
constitute stimulating challenges
—
take into account student interests and their prior knowledge
—
do not have arbitrarily established time constraints
—
result in a production destined for the public
—
require from the student:
o
a mobilization of his knowledge
o
a definition of a personal approach
o
a regulation
o
a cognitive commitment
o
a form of interaction with his peers and the teacher
o
the production of an original response
—
combine various evaluation means that help students grasp the multiple facets of learning
(observation, interview, analysis of productions, etc.).
—
involve active student participation.
—
contribute to the further development of competencies (are learning opportunities).
—
call on the teacher’s judgments to use evaluation criteria that are:
— multiple
— known in advance by the students
(See next page for a table showing the differences between traditional tests and authentic tasks)
* Inspired by publications by the following authors:
83
Taken from [http://recit.csbe.qc.ca/scnat/reforme/evaluationauthentique.html].
Page 239 de 383
DEPOVER, Christian et Bernadette NOËL, “L’évaluation des compétences et des processus
cognitifs ”, Pédagogie en développement, De Boeck Université, 1999.
JONNAERT, Philippe et Cécile VANDER BORGHT, Créer des conditions d’apprentissage, De
Boeck Université, 1999.
LOUIS, Roland, L’évaluation des apprentissages : Théorie et pratique, Éditions Études Vivantes,
Laval, 1999.
PERRENOUD, Philippe, “L’évaluation des élèves ”, Pédagogie en développement, De Boeck
Université, 1998.
TARDIF, Jacques, Intégrer les nouvelles technologies de l’information, ESF éditeur, Paris, 1998.
WIGGINS, Grant, Assessing student performance, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Page 240 de 383
Key differences between traditional tests and authentic tasks
Traditional tests
Authentic tasks
Indicators of authenticity
Require only exact answers.
Require a quality product or
output and its justification.
We evaluate if students can
explain, apply, adjust or
justify answers without being
limited to exact responses
produced using facts or
algorithms.
Must not be known in
advance to ensure their
validity.
Are known in advance, as
much as possible; imply a
degree of excellence to
accomplish common tasks
that are demanding and
predictable; there are no
“traps”,.
The evaluation tasks, criteria
and standards are predictable
or known (a story, a theatre
play, an engine to repair, a
proposal for a customer, etc.).
Are disconnected from the
context and realistic
requirements.
Require that knowledge be
connected to the real world;
the student must “experience”
history, sciences etc., based
on realistic simulations or real
situations.
The task is a challenge and
presents a set of true
constraints that are common
to professionals, citizens or
consumers.
Contain isolated elements that Constitute integrated
require recognition or the use challenges where knowledge
of known skills.
and judgment combine in an
inventive manner to shape a
quality product or output.
Even though the task has a
“correct” answer, it offers
multiple facets and is not
routine. We must clarify a
problem, proceed by trial and
error, adjusting and adapting
to the case or facts in
question, etc..
Are simplified to allow for
easy and reliable marking.
The task involves important
aspects that make up the
output or challenges common
to individuals in a same field
of studies, rather than those
that are easy to mark. It does
not sacrifice validity in favour
of reliability.
Involve complex tasks,
criteria and requirements.
Page 241 de 383
Allow for only one attempt.
Are iterative: the essential
tasks, types and requirements
are recurrent.
The work is designed to
establish if, over time, the
student has acquired a true or
artificial mastery of the
subject matter, real
knowledge or simply a
familiarity with the subject
matter.
Are dependent on highly
technical correlations.
Have an obvious value; they
involve tasks that have been
validated based on roles
common to adults and
challenges in the discipline.
The task is valid and fair at
first glance. It therefore
arouses interest and
perseverance; it seems
suitable and stimulating for
students and teaching
personnel.
Make it possible to obtain a
grade.
Provide useful diagnostic
feedback (sometimes
concomitant); the student can
confirm the results and make
required adjustments.
The evaluation is not limited
to solely verifying the output
but to future improvements.
The student is perceived as
the primary “consumer” of
the information.
Taken from Grant Wiggins, Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance, San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Page 242 de 383
Tool 6.G
Evaluation activities (François Lasnier)84
Actions
Type of activities
Informal formative, non
interactive (activities without tools)
— I ask students to write down what they know about the
disciplinary content to be worked on and on similar tasks
(activation of prior acquisitions).
— I observe what students do, without any specific goal,
and I relate my observations to them.
— Following the informal observation, I provide one or
more students with clues on how to complete a certain
part of the task.
— I ask students to use a specific learning strategy.
— During the execution of the task, I correct understanding
or execution errors (individually or collectively).
Informal formative, interactive
with the teacher (activities without
tools)
— I discuss with students what they know or don’t know
about the disciplinary content to be worked on and any
similar tasks already completed (activation of prior
acquisitions).
— I ask the student to repeat his understanding of what I
said or the instructions for carrying out the task.
— I plan “question & answer” sessions.
— I ask the student to identify his errors and to comment on
them.
— I ask the student to explain what he is doing and how he
is doing it; I help him make the connections with the
capacities of the targeted competency.
—
84
I ask the student to choose a learning strategy and explain
its usefulness for the situation in question.
Translated from François Lasnier, Réussir la formation par compétences, Guérin, 2000, p. 434-437.
Page 243 de 383
Informal formative, interactive
among the students
— I plan “question & answer” sessions between the
members of a work team.
— I ask the students, in groups of 2 or 3, to compare their
results on a task or an activity and to explain their results
to others.
— I ask the students, in teams, to explain and discuss the
steps they used to carry out their task or activity
(metacognition, verbalized out loud).
—
I ask the students, in teams, to identify any individual or
collective errors they can identify in the tasks.
Actions
Type of activities
Formal formative (with tools)
— I ask for “objectification” with questions on subjects such
as (what I liked, what I didn’t like, what I learned, how I
learned, what strategies I used, the amount of effort, the
quality of effort, the approach used based on the
capacities of the competency solicited).
— I use an “observation grid” that refers to the evaluation
criteria to identify which capacity or competency the
student has mastered (checklist, comments, quantitative
or qualitative descriptive scale, or other types of
observation grids).
— I ask the student to complete a self-evaluation grid
(several possible types – see examples in the chapter on
“Evaluation”).
o
Checklist (presence or absence of a criterion).
o
List of comments (on the criteria for success of a
competency).
o
Degree of use of certain learning strategies.
o
List of sub-criteria derived from the criteria for
success (partial success only).
o
List dealing with the overall criteria for success of a
competency.
o
List of criteria with a qualitative scale.
o
List of criteria with a quantitative scale.
o
List of criteria with a descriptive scale.
— I evaluate student tasks by using one type of grid among
possible grid types.
—
I ask the student to compare the result of his task with a
typical task result.
Page 244 de 383
Preparing for the summative
evaluation
(formative evaluation as a
preparation stage for the certification
evaluation)
— Take into account the realization context.
— Take into account the evaluation criteria (drafted by the
MEQ).
— Describe the mastery levels for each criterion (descriptive
scale grades).
— Establish a success threshold for each criterion.
Note. Make sure there is a very close link between the formal
formative evaluation, the preparatory stage to the
summative evaluation, and the final test.
Page 245 de 383
Comparison of various evaluation methods
Methods
Objective test
Oral test
Performance
Evaluation85
Criteria
Sampling of
knowledge with a
maximum of
reliability and
efficiency
Evaluation of
intellectual skills
or the mastery of
knowledge
Evaluation of
knowledge during
teaching
Evaluation of the
ability to transfer
knowledge and
apply it to the
situation in question
Verification of
elements
Writing task
Open questions
with progressive
deepening
Written text or
natural event
structuring the type
of performance
required
Reading,
evaluation, choice
Organization,
composition
Oral answer
Plan, construction,
original answer
Total of exact
answers
Judgment on
comprehension
Evaluation on
Validation that the
value of the answer attributes are
present, evaluation
of the demonstration
and the performance
Main advantages
Efficiency: can
evaluate several
elements
frequently
Can measure
complex
objectives on the
cognitive level
Relation between
evaluation and
teaching
Provides rich data
on performance and
skills
Potential source
of inefficiency
Weakness of grade
value, importance
given to facts and
low-level skills,
weak content in
sample
Low quality
exercises, writing
skills confused
with knowledge,
does not meet
required criteria
Weak questions,
students lack
desire to answer
questions, few
questions
Weak sampling,
vague criteria, lack
of criteria, weak
measurement
conditions
Goal
— Multiple choice
Type of tasks
— True or false
— Text to
complete
— Pairing
Student’s answer
Grading
85
Evaluation based on a production or a realization making it possible to verify student’s competency.
Page 246 de 383
Influence on
learning
Key to success
Encourages
memorization if
properly
constructed; can
encourage
treatment skills
Encourages
treatment skills
and writing skills
Practice doing tests Planned writing
Ability to speak
exercises
Speed
Shaping the
answer
Reading time
Stimulates
participation;
provides
immediate
feedback to the
teacher and the
student
Provides an
opportunity to use
knowledge and
skills to resolve
authentic situations
Sampling of
questions
Systematic
preparation of
performance;
implementation;
clear expectations;
clearly defined
criteria
Page 247 de 383
The notion of complex production86
What does “complex production” mean? And what distinguishes it from other realities that may be the
object of the evaluation.
Let’s imagine, for example, a problem to resolve in the field of electric circuitry. We are faced with a
complex network of resistances, some of which are arranged in series, others in parallel mode. The
network is supplied by a power source with its own internal resistance. We are asked to determine the
electromotive force needed to supply a current of “x” amperes. Solving this type of problem requires a
variety of knowledge and different skills and it is relatively easy to identify a truly complex process,
especially when the required task is new for the individual. But the required response, in terms of
“production” or “product” is relatively simple with regard to its form, since it is simply a matter of
writing down a number representing a certain number of volts. If necessary, this answer could be chosen
from several other proposed answers, which would make the problem a “multiple choice question”.
This example shows us quite clearly that the resolution of certain problems, and similarly several other
tasks, can call upon complex processes that lead to a product that in itself can seem very simple: a short or
multiple choice answer.
Process and product are therefore two distinct entities. We should also understand that, in many
situations, the evaluation of the product or result of a process does not present any particular difficulties,
since there is a “universally accepted” answer that makes it possible to objectively code the student’s
answer: the answer is either good or bad, which makes it easy to judge. As for evaluating the process that
led to a particular answer, we must take into consideration a certain number of aspects. In the case of an
incorrect answer, we might want to attribute a few points for getting part of a solution to the problem
right. When dealing with a correct answer, we might want to appreciate the choice of a strategy rather
than another for its “elegance” or its “efficiency”. Whatever approach was used, the evaluation of a
problem resolution process (in keeping with our example) will not necessarily be based on purely
objective choices.
If a complex process can lead to an answer that is very simple in appearance (for example, write a word
or a number, pick one answer from several proposed ones), there are still many other cases where the
product itself is complex. Here are a few examples: write an adventure story, perform a piece of music,
recite a poem, build a television set, carry out a laboratory set-up, execute a figure skating technique, etc.
Each of these examples can be considered a performance or a product (or production). There should be no
difficulty in admitting that the processes leading to “writing an adventure story” or “performing a piece of
music” offer varying degrees of complexity. But, in each case, the product itself is complex, both in terms
of its execution and in terms of its evaluation.
To begin with, there is no single model that enables us to grade the complex productions mentioned in the
examples above according to the “good—bad” dichotomy or according to progressive scales,. An
adventure story, as the performance of a piece of music both include several distinct aspects or
dimensions that must be taken into consideration to render a judgment on their quality. Secondly, an
individual who commits himself to one of these productions is usually placed in a situation of relative
autonomy. This means it is up to the individual to call on the pertinent components in his own repertory
of knowledge to carry out the production.
The tasks included in an evaluation of complex productions must therefore, involve the least amount of
coaching possible, while imposing constraints that will serve as pretexts for evaluation. (…) For example,
if we ask a student to write an adventure story, we can include a certain number of constraints or
86
Translated from Gérard Scallon, L’évaluation formative des apprentissages, Presses de l’Université Laval, 1988, p. 152154.
Page 248 de 383
dimensions: creation of one or more characters, conception of a threatening situation, appropriate use of
communication tools relative to story telling, respect of syntax rules, spelling, etc.
At the end of a long learning process, all these implicit constraints must be part of the student’s repertory
without having to necessarily remind him explicitly. In certain cases, we can add other constraints to be
respected: tense of verbs, figures of speech, length of story, etc. These constraints, of course, take away a
certain amount of autonomy in the realization of the production. The required autonomy in a complex
production makes the student responsible for calling on his basic knowledge and skills and gives him a
margin for manoeuvre in the realization of his production.
Page 249 de 383
Instrument 6.H
Task 10:
Construction of tools for collecting observable data: marking grids
and rating scales
To infer and judge if a student has achieved the required learning in the course, the teacher or teaching
team must develop one or more tools that will enable the collection of observable data during the
evaluation tasks.
The marking grid
The observation grid is a measurement tool that helps us collect this data. The observation grid makes it
possible to note the particularities of a product, a process, a speech or an attitude. It provides us with a list
of indicators as well as a method for recording the observations.
Sometimes we use the expression “observation grid” and sometimes the term “marking grid”. What
distinguishes them in reality is their ultimate use.
The observation grid serves mainly to gather factual information. It is used repeatedly with certain themes
or learning objects to render an eventual evaluation judgment, usually a formative evaluation, which
therefore takes place during the learning process.
The marking grid serves mainly to render a judgment based on indicators and criteria in a summative
evaluation situation. Both grids can refer to the same observable manifestations.
The observation grid is generally composed of a list of indicators and criteria and a rating grid that makes
it possible to achieve an analytical grading by examining the product, the process, the speech or the
attitude as regards each evaluation criterion.
The rating scale
The rating scale is an integral part of the observation grid. It is presented in the form of a continuum, it
makes it possible to rate the quality or quantity of behaviour(s) described by the indicators. There are
different kinds of rating scales: regular scales such as graphic, as well as numeric, figure and descriptive
scales. This latter type of scale is by far the most useful and reliable in evaluating a competency. For all
indicators and criteria, it “describes a set of performances ranging from what is acceptable to what is not
acceptable”. The performance description is done to clarify for students what is considered an effective
realization of the task and what is not.”87
Here is an example of a marking grid.
87
Translated from Louis Roland, L’évaluation des apprentissages en classe : Théorie et pratique, Éditions Études Vivantes,
1999, p. 95.
Page 250 de 383
Proposed marking grid
Name: ____________________ Course: __________________________
Marking grid
Evaluation object:
Evaluation means:
Example: marking grid for the final course test
Table showing the evaluation plan and the marking grid
Indicators
Weighting
Marking >
/20
16-20
12-15
0-11
Marking >
/20
16-20
12-15
0-11
Marking >
/20
16-20
12-15
0-11
Note:
On 100: …………………
By letter: …….
Examiner: ………………….
Criteria
Rating scale
Comments, observations:
Page 251 de 383
Proposed marking grid
Name:_____________________Course: __________________________
Marking grid
Evaluation object:
Evaluation means:
Indicators
Example: marking grid for the final course test
Table showing the evaluation plan and the marking grid
Weighting
1. Analyzes the training
objective
Marking >
Pertinent analysis of the training
objective
/20
2. Specifies the objects
of evaluation
Marking >
3. Identifies
indicators
Criteria
Identification and
connection of all
components of the
objective.
16-20
Pertinent choice of objects of
evaluation
/20
the
Rating scale
Sufficient and adequate choice of
indicators
The objects have a
global and
integrative nature.
They integrate all
the components of
the competency.
They contribute to
the implementation
of the targeted
competency.
Identification and
partial relative
placement of
components of the
objective. The
essential elements
are identified.
12-15
The objects have a
specific character
and integrate a few
components of the
competency.
They contribute to
some degree to the
implementation of
the targeted
competency.
Identification and
incomplete relative
placement of
components of the
objective.
0-11
The objects have a
specific character and
integrate only slightly
or not at all, the
components of the
competency. They
contribute only slightly
or not at all to the
implementation of the
targeted competency.
16-20
12-15
0-11
The indicators are in
sufficient number.
The indicators allow
for observable
demonstration of the
objects.
The indicators are in
sufficient number.
Most of the
indicators allow for
observable
objects.
The indicators are
insufficient in number.
The indicators only
allow for the observable
objects to a slight
degree or not at all.
Page 252 de 383
Indicators
Weighting
/20
Marking >
Grade:
On 100: …………….
By letter: ……………
Examiner: …………….
Adequate
marking grid
/20
Some of the criteria
provide good descriptions
of the qualities of the
indicators.
12-15
0-11
The methods chosen (one
or more) correspond well
to the nature of the
training objective.
The methods chosen (one
or more) correspond very
little to the nature of the
training objective.
16-20
12-15
0-11
The tool includes and
correctly formulates all
the components of a
marking grid (4/4) :
correctly formulates a
majority of the
components of a marking
grid (3/4) :
correctly formulates some
of the components of a
marking grid: (2/4 or
less)
—
—
Indicators
Criteria
—
—
Indicators
Criteria
—
—
Scale
Weighting and
marking
—
—
Scale
Weighting and
marking
/20
6. Designs a marking
grid
Most of the criteria
provide good
descriptions of the
qualities of the
indicators.
16-20
Pertinent choice The methods chosen
(one or more)
of evaluation
correspond very well to
methods
the nature of the
training objective.
5. Indicates evaluation
methods (one or
more)
Marking >
Rating scale
Adequate choice The criteria provide
good descriptions of the
of evaluation
qualities of the
criteria
indicators.
4. Specifies the
evaluation criteria
Marking >
Criteria
—
Indicators
—
—
—
Criteria
Scale
Weighting and
marking
16-20
12-15
0-11
Comments, observations :
Translated from Grid devised by Hermann Guy and Michel Poirier.
Page 253 de 383
Another example of a marking grid
Marking grid88
Student’s name: ______________________________________________________
Name of work:_______________________________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________________________________________
Rating scale
Criteria
Relevance of the The task is relevant: it
allows the student to
task
demonstrate the targeted
competency(ies).
The task is relevant: it allows
the student to demonstrate a
portion of the targeted
competency(ies).
The task is not relevant:
it does not relate to the
targeted
competency(ies).
3
0
One of the following
components is missing:
— The object of evaluation
— The realization context
(duration material, work
methods: individually or
in teams)
The explanations are
summary.
Two or more of the
following components
are missing:
— The
object
of
evaluation
— realization context
(duration, material,
work
methods:
individually or in
teams)
very summary.
15-12
9-6
4-0
All the selected
observable components
(statements) are related to
the object of evaluation.
Most
of
the
selected
observable
components
(statements) are related to the
object of evaluation.
Few selected observable
components (statements)
are related to the object
of evaluation.
10-8
6-4
2-0
5
All of the following
components are present:
— The
object
of
evaluation
Quality of the task
— The realization
description
context (duration,
material, work
methods: individual
or in teams)
detailed.
/20
Representativeness
of the statements
included in the
observation grid
The list of statements is
complete (all the
important behaviours are
present).
10-8
The statements are
grouped as criteria. The
groupings are pertinent.
/30
88
10
incomplete (some important
behaviours are missing).
6-4
incomplete (most
important behaviours are
missing).
2-0
The statements are grouped
The statements are not
as criteria. The groupings are grouped as criteria.
more or less pertinent.
The groupings are not
pertinent.
6
0
Translated from Joanne Munn, L’évaluation des compétences, pas si compliqué que cela, Notes de cours, Performa, Fall
2001.
Page 254 de 383
Criteria
Rating scale
All statements describe
observable and/or
measurable behaviours.
Respects writing
rules
Some statements describe
behaviours that are difficult
to observe and/or measure.
Several statements
describe behaviours that
are difficult to observe
and/or measure.
5-4
3-2
1-0
All statements are clear
and univocal. Sentences
are complete and written
in the affirmative mode.
Most statements are clear and
univocal.
Sentences are complete and
written in the affirmative
mode.
Several statements are
difficult to understand or
the statements are
written in abridged form,
ex: use of key words and
incomplete sentences.
5
3
0
The choice of rating scale The choice of rating scale is
is consistent with the
more or less consistent with
object of evaluation.
the object of evaluation.
5
The grid includes all the
important components:
— statements
— rating scales
— space for student
name and user
— points attributed
/20
5-4
The quality of the
observation grid’s
page setup
The page setup is
excellent and facilitates
the user’s task:
arrangement, characters
used, statement sequence
etc.
/10
10-8
3
One of the important
components is missing:
— statements
— rating scales
— space for student name
and user
3-2
The page setup is good.
Some improvements are
required to facilitate the
user’s task.
6-4
The choice of rating
scale is not consistent
with the object of
evaluation.
0
Two or more important
components are
missing:
— statements
— rating scales
— space for student
name and user
1-0
The page setup has gaps
that complicate the
user’s task.
2-0
Page 255 de 383
Criteria
Rating scale
Critical analysis of At least one strength and
one weakness are
work
identified. The
explanations are very
pertinent: possible
improvements are
identified.
/20
20-18
At least one strength and one
weakness are identified. The
explanations are pertinent but
summary.
At least one strength and
one weakness are
identified, but generally
the explanations are
somewhat pertinent or
not at all, or no strength
or weakness is
identified.
15-12
5-0
/100
Evaluator:
Comments:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 256 de 383
Task 11:
Choosing the judgment and marking method to evaluate student
learning
The collection of observable data on student performance helps the teacher or teaching team evaluate the
progress of student learning. The complex, multidimensional and integrative character of evaluation tasks
generally requires that a judgment be rendered based on an overall set of indicators and criteria.
This judgment can be applied to:
—
Each indicator and criterion and the application of mathematical weighting. See the example
presented in tool 6.1 “Example of a marking grid designed at Cégep de Saint-Laurent”.
—
Each indicator and criterion and a verification that the minimal level has been reached (success
threshold), followed by mathematical weighting.
—
The learning described by a set of indicators and criteria. The judgment and the determination of
the rating are derived from the various performance levels achieved for a set of indicators and
criteria.
Within the scope of a global judgment, certain tools have been tried in the network89:
—
Student profile with minimum competency threshold90 (see following pages)
—
Student profile according to various levels of succes91 (see following pages)
Based on the selected method or methods, the judgment should be rendered on a combination or
integration of evaluated learning rather than on its juxtaposition.
Here is an example of a marking grid.
89
For a general approach as to the development of these tools, consult Houle et autres, Les grilles d’observation pour évaluer
les apprentissages, Pédagogie collégiale, vol. 11, no 4, p. 12.
90
See example for a course given at l’ITA de La Pocatière and developed by Mélanie Cyr et Gaston Gagnon.
91
See example for a training period given at Cégep de Saint-Hyacinthe developed by Julie-Lyne Leroux in collaboration with
members of the department of Techniques d’éducation à l’enfance.
Page 257 de 383
Example of a marking grid
Targeted competencies: Research and design of a recommendation and participation report for a seminar
Purpose of evaluation: Develop a written report and manage a research seminar
Evaluation means:
The research seminar and handing in the written report
Student’s name:
________________________________________________________
Name of work:
________________________________________________________
Indicators
Weighting
Criteria
Rating scale
Clear and structured presentation of contents: The contents are very
— Introductory pages (thank you notes, list of pertinent. The presentation
is well structured.
tables, list of graphics, etc.);
— Introduction;
— Development (chapters);
— Conclusion;
— Annex;
— Glossary;
— Bibliography;
— Index.
Presents a
recommendation
report in
compliance with
rules
/25
20-25
Written report respects language and
vocabulary rules:
— Application of the various rules (spelling,
grammar, syntax and typography);
— Sentence structure;
— Syntax;
— Proper use of tense;
— Handling of relationship indicators;
— Use of relative pronouns;
Properly drafts a
long report
—
/25
The overall report is written
in correct and clear English.
Sentences are error free and
written using a sophisticated
vocabulary.
The contents are rather
pertinent and the
presentation is rather well
structured.
14-19
Most of the elements of
the report are written in
correct and clear English.
Most of the sentences are
complete and written
using correct vocabulary
with few mistakes.
The contents are not
pertinent and the
presentation is not
sufficiently structured.
0-13
Several elements of the
report are hard to
understand and are
written in language that
is incorrect and not very
sophisticated.
Punctuation.
20-25
14-19
0-13
Page 258 de 383
Indicators
Weighting
Presents a page
setup adapted to a
complex report
Criteria
Choice and respect of page setup standards for
a complex report:
— Presentation page;
— Adequate pagination;
— Typographical grading;
— Grading of headings;
— Choice of font;
— Order of presentation of elements;
— Complementary
documents:
annexes,
bibliographical references, synoptic tables;
— Production of a table or graphic;
— Use of advanced word processing functions
for an automated page setup (styles,
imported
spreadsheet
files,
graphic
illustrations).
/25
Presents and
structures a
research seminar
Complete presentation of the overall research
leading to the development of the
recommendation report:
— Visual effects, presentation supports;
— Verbal communication;
— Non verbal communication;
— Richness of content;
— Knowledge of subject;
— Interest;
— Originality.
/25
MARKING:
Rating scale
Most of the page setup
criteria are respected. The
order and choice of graphic
elements are very pertinent.
Most of the page setup
criteria are respected, but
the order and choice of
graphic elements could be
improved or added to.
Little respect for page
setup criteria. Too many
gaps and several
necessary graphics are
missing from the report.
20-25
14-19
0-13
All the observable elements
are judiciously respected and
the presentation is well
structured.
Most of the observable
elements are respected and
the presentation is
generally well structured.
Few observable elements
are respected and
adapted to the seminar’s
needs.
20-25
14-19
0-13
/100
Page 259 de 383
Student profile and minimum threshold of competency
(Example: course: Exercising the profession of horse trainer, Mélanie Cyr, ITA de La Pocatière, fall 2000)92
Optimal level
A = 90 %
Intermediate level
B = 75 %
Minimal level
C = 60 %
Insufficient level
D = 50 %
Non-existent level
E = 40 %
The student is able to ask
himself all the basic pertinent
questions
when
various
problem situations occur and
can analyze the situation indepth.
himself all the basic pertinent
questions
when
various
can adequately analyze the
situation.
himself the basic pertinent
questions
when
various
can analyze the situation
summarily.
himself some basic pertinent
questions
when
various
problem situations occur, but
is unable to analyze the
situation.
The student is unable to ask
himself basic pertinent questions
when various problem situations
occur and is unable to analyze the
situation.
His
explanations
are
complete and attest to his
ability to establish links
between what he has learned
in theory and what he must
do in practice.
His
explanations
are
complete and attest to his
ability to establish links
between what he has learned
in theory and what he must
do in practice.
His explanations are adequate
and attest to his ability to
establish links between what
he has learned in theory and
what he must do in practice.
His explanations are vague
and attest to his inability to
establish links between what
he has learned in theory and
what he must do in practice.
His explanations are nonexistent
and attest to his inability to
establish links between what he
has learned in theory and what he
must do in practice.
The student executes very
well all the techniques for
training, management and
well being of horses,
including working out and
planning the breaking in of a
colt and an adequate training
program.
The student executes well all
the techniques of training,
management and well being
of horses, including working
out and planning the breaking
in of a colt and an adequate
training program.
The
student
correctly
executes all the techniques of
training, management and
well being of horses,
including working out and
planning the breaking of a
program.
The student is unable to
correctly execute some of the
techniques
of
training,
management and well being
of horses, including working
out and planning the breaking
in of a colt and an adequate
training program.
The student is unable to execute
the techniques of training,
management and well being of
horses, including working out
and planning the breaking of a
program.
The student is able rigorously
to carry out all the
recommendations of a more
experienced trainer.
The student is able to
rigorously carry out all the
rigorously carry out all the
The student is able to carry
out
most
of
the
The student is unable to carry out
the recommendations of a more
92
Translated from G. Gagnon et autres, Odyssée de l’évaluation, Profil de l’élève et seuil minimal de compétence, Exemple, ITA La Pocatière, 2001.
Page 260 de 383
Optimal level
A = 90 %
Intermediary level
B = 75 %
Minimal level
C = 60 %
Insufficient level
D = 50 %
Non-existent
E = 40 %
recognize a horse’s major
qualities and faults.
recognize certain of a horse’s
The student is unable to
recognize a minimum of a
horse’s qualities and faults.
The student always adopts a
good attitude with horses, is
able to recognize his errors,
accepts criticism and learns
from the above.
able to recognize his errors
and accepts criticism.
able to recognize his errors
and accepts criticism.
The student does not always
adopt a good attitude with
horses and is unable to
recognize his errors or accept
criticism.
The student never adopts a good
attitude with horses and is unable
to recognize his errors or accept
criticism.
He demonstrates a very
strong will to always learn
more.
He demonstrates a strong will
to always learn more.
He sometimes demonstrates a
will to learn more.
He does not demonstrate a
strong will to always learn
more.
He does not demonstrate a strong
will to always learn more.
The
student
constantly
demonstrates a capacity for
responsibility,
autonomy,
commitment
and
professionalism.
The
student
frequently
responsibility,
autonomy,
commitment
and
professionalism.
The student occasionally
responsibility,
autonomy,
commitment
and
professionalism.
The
student
rarely
responsibility,
autonomy,
commitment
and
professionalism.
The student never demonstrates a
capacity
for
responsibility,
autonomy, commitment and
professionalism.
The student has a very good
understanding of the world of
horse racing and can fit in
easily.
The student has a good
without difficulty.
The student has a good
without too much difficulty.
understand the world of horse
racing, but has difficulty
fitting in.
The student has difficulty
understanding the world of horse
racing and has difficulty fitting
in.
The student communicates
and converses very well with
colleagues.
and converses well with
colleagues
whenever
necessary.
and
converses
with
colleagues when necessary,
but there can be restraints.
The student experiences
frequent
difficulties
in
communicating
and
conversing with colleagues.
The
student
does
not
communicate with his colleagues.
All of the above can be
achieved
without
any
supervision.
achieved
with
minor
supervision.
achieved
with
frequent
supervision.
Some of the above can be
achieved only with a high
level of supervision.
None of the above can be
achieved even with a high level
of supervision.
Page 261 de 383
Criteria
Performance
level
Insufficient
Competency
Level
93
*
*
*
*
of openness in work
*
completeness
in
*
G.1 Rigorous compilation of the stage
assessment …
F.3 Stringent respect for professional
secret
F.2 Punctuality and respect for number of
“stage ” hours
F.1 Regularity and
compiling works
E.3 Evaluation of creative process during
routine and waiting periods
E.2 D Degree of fluidity and flexibility
during routine and waiting periods
E.1 Degree of fluidity and flexibility of
planned activities
D.3 Manifestation
meetings
D.2 Active participation in work meetings
D.1 Preparation for conferences
C.4 Animation activities/ Student attitude
C.3 Animation activities / Animation
techniques
C.2 Make sure the animation provides a
healthy and safe framework
C.1 Analysis of the animation process
B.3 Treatment for illness, disease and
accidents
B.2 Providing hygienic care
B.1 Proper and rigorous application of
universal precautions
A.3 Ability to intervene in a democratic
fashion on the spot
A.2 Develop and maintain a significant
relationship with the children
A.1 Appropriate determination of the
child’s needs that are to be met
Decision Algorithm
Example: Profile of a minimal success level – 60 % 93
Superior
Competency
Level
Medium
Competency
Level
Minimal
Competency
Level
*
The success level is presented in the shaded areas: 03/20 superior, 01/20 medium, 16/20 minimal, 0/20 insufficient.
* Reaching this level of performance implies the failure of a stage.
Translated from Julie Lyne Leroux, Profil de niveau minimal, stage d’animation (322-A52-Hy), Cégep de Saint-Hyacinthe.
Page 262 de 383
Tool 6.I
Sample marking grid designed
at Cégep Saint-Laurent
Design Team
Céline Dufour, Monique Hébert, Marie-Paule Lachaîne,
Chantal Laperrière, Isabelle Senkus, Lise Vendette
Faculty of Nursing
180-50Q-SL
Evaluation manual for clinical teaching
Competency 01QL
To provide support for people requiring
nursing care in mental health
Session: ________________
Student’s name: _________________________________
Rating: __________ %
Professor’s name: ________________________________
February 2003
Page 263 de 383
01QL – Providing nursing care in mental health
REALIZATION CONTEXT
—
Within the legal framework of professional practice
—
To promote health, the prevention of illness, treatment and rehabilitation
—
In a hospital centre (HP) or other resource centre (ex: transition homes)
—
In collaboration with mental health associations and organizations
—
Based on:
—
—
—
o
Laws applicable to the clientele, the care and services offered
o
A person’s health record and an intervention plan
With the help of:
o
Data collection tools or evaluation grids
o
Administrative documents
o
Didactic material
o
Treatment and information transmission equipment
o
Reference works
While respecting:
o
Individual ethics and ethical rules
o
Legislation in effect
By referring to the therapeutic approach adopted in that professional field
Page 264 de 383
Overall profile: “Professional attitude”
Rating for (student name): _____________________________
PRESENTATION
OF
PLACEMENT GRID
THE
WORK
•
This overall profile assesses the final
integration objective for course 50Q-01QL.
•
It contains 35 performance criteria and 7
criteria relating to professional attitudes.
•
The work placement marking includes only an
evaluation of the 35 performance criteria. The
evaluation of professional attitudes is done on
a qualitative level. However, the nonachievement of certain professional attitudes
can lead to failure of a work placement. These
attitudes are identified by an asterisk.
•
Similarly, an INSUFFICIENT mark on a Superior
performance criteria identified with an competency
asterisk is reason enough to receive failure in level
the work placement.
Total:
The acquisitions of previous sessions MUST
BE MAINTAINED. Failure to do so will Average
result in the student being removed from the competency
work placement. The student must then level
complete a pedagogical prescription in order
Total:
to reintegrate into the work environment.
•
•
•
Any critical incident that could affect the
physical or psychological safety of a client
and his family can result in a failure in the
work placement or the overall training periods
that make up the session.
Minimal
competency
level
Total:
To be given access to the final course test, the Insufficient
student must have obtained a passing grade competency
level
from the total of all the training periods.
Total:
Page 265 de 383
1.2 Assembles information collected into pertinent groups
2.1 Uses evaluation methods and tools
2.2 Performs data collection
2.3 Evaluates functional autonomy
*
*
*
*
*
*
6.1 Manifests helpful attitudes
*
*
*
*
6.5 Uses specific care and evaluation methods
6.6 Applies specific care program protocols
*
*
*
6.9 Evaluates the results of his teaching
*
*
7.4 Transmits information to the client/family on the medication
7.5 Provides supervision and a follow up after administration
*
*
*
*
9.2 Provides a report when he or she the unit
*
*
* An asterisk indicates failure at this stage
Page 266 de 383
*
9.5 Guides the client/family to the resources appropriate to the situation
9.4 Collaborates with the care giving team and the interdisciplinary team
9.3 Applies administrative procedures
9.1 Keeps proper notes on file
*
8.3 Evaluates care giving activities entrusted to others
8.2 Modifies the care giving plan
8.1 Evaluates results obtained and needs met with the client/family
7.3 Identifies alternative solutions for medication
*
7.2 Determines the conditions for application of the prescription
7.1 Respects the rules for the preparation, administration and
registration of medication
6.8 Applies teaching programs
6.7Assists the client/family and reinforces student autonomy
6.4 Applies supervisory and security measures
*
6.3 Provides support adapted to the clinical situation
6.2 Uses an approach that is suitable to the specific client/family
characteristics.
5.3 Organizes care giving activities
*
5.2 Plans medical interventions
*
5.1 Establishes objectives of medical care
4.1 Determines when problems are of a medical nature and those to be
treated in collaboration
*
3.3 Signals important changes in a timely fashion to provide effective
interventions
3.2 Interprets results obtained
3.1 Verifies physical, psychological parameters and diagnostic tests
2.4 Involves family/friends in the partnership perspective
1.1 Collects information from various sources
Superior
level of
competen
cy
Total :
Average
level of
competen
cy
Total :
Minimu
m level
of
competen
cy
Total :
Unsatisfa
ctory
level of
competen
cy
Total :
Grid for interpretation of results
MARK
Superior
(number of criteria)
Average
Minimal
Insufficient
100 %
35
-
-
-
95 %
≥30 (including
7.1, 8.2, 9.1, 9.2)
5
-
-
90 %
≥20 (including
7.1, 8.2, 9.1, 9.2)
15
-
-
85 %
≥10 (including
7.1, 8.2, 9.1, 9.2)
25
-
-
80 %
≥5 (including
7.1, 8.2, 9.1, 9.2)
25
≤5
-
75 %
≥3 (including
7.1, 8.2, 9.1)
20
≤11
≤1
70 %
≥3 (including
7.1, 8.2, 9.1)
15
≤14
≤3
65 %
≥3 (including
7.1, 8.2, 9.1)
8
≤19
≤5
60 %
≥3 (including
7.1, 8.2, 9.1)
-
≤25
≤7
55 %
<3
-
-
>5
Page 267 de 383
Integrated evaluation and marking grid
o
N and name of course: 180.50Q-SL
No of learning sequences: 3 or 6 (bloc A)
Elements of
competency
1. To seek
information in
order to ensure
continuity
Final integration objective: (O1QL)
Providing support for persons requiring
Criteria
Realization context:
According to MEQ specifications (p. 2 of the
evaluation manual on clinical teaching)
Rating scale
Minimal
Average
Superior
Few available
information sources
were adequately
consulted (files, interservice report, care
plan, cardex, care team,
interdisciplinary team,
etc. …).
Main available
information sources
were adequately
consulted (file, interservice report, care
etc.…).
Most available
information sources
were adequately
plan, cardex, care
team, interdisciplinary
team, etc…).
All available
information sources
were adequately
etc…).
Entering of
pertinent
information.
Key pertinent
information sources
were not entered.
All pertinent
information sources
were entered before the
initial contact.
Several non-pertinent
elements were entered.
All pertinent
information sources
initial contact.
One or two nonpertinent elements
were entered.
All pertinent
information sources
initial contact.
No non-pertinent
elements were entered.
1.2 Connects the
collected
information.
Pertinent
connection of
information.
The essential
information has not
been connected in a
relevant manner.
60% of essential
information was
connected in a relevant
manner.
75% of essential
information was
manner.
All essential
information was
manner.
2.1 Uses
evaluation tools
and methods in an
appropriate
context.
Appropriate use
of evaluation
tools and
methods.
Inadequate use of
evaluation tools and
methods
or
Adequate use of
methods in an
inappropriate context.
Adequate use of
methods in an
appropriate context in
most cases.
Adequate use of
methods in an
almost all cases.
Adequate use of
methods in an
all cases.
Indicator
Quality(ies)
1.1 Collects
information from
various sources
before the initial
contact with the
client and then
makes daily
entries in the
institution’s work
plan.
Complete and
adequate
consultation of
information
sources.
Insufficient
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
2. To conduct
an initial
evaluation of the
person or update
data
Marking ⇒
Comments, observations
Page 268 de 383
No and name of course: 180.50Q-SL
Elements of
competency
Criteria
According to MEQ specifications (p. 2 of
clinical teaching evaluation manual)
Rating scale
Indicators
Quality (ies)
2.2 Collects biophysiological and
psychosocial
information from
the client/family.
Collects all
relevant
information in
an autonomous
manner.
2.3 Evaluates
functional
independence.
2.4 Involves the
family/close
relatives in a
partnership
perspective.
Insufficient
Minimal
Average
Superior
The main data elements All relevant information
are not collected.
has been collected with
little or no supervision.
or
The main data elements
are collected but require
constant supervision.
All relevant
information has been
collected with minimal
supervision in a
complex context.
All relevant information
is collected without
supervision in a
complex context.
Pertinent
evaluation of
the
client/family.
The key relevant
elements of the
client/family were not
evaluated.
All pertinent
client/family elements
were evaluated.
All pertinent elements
were evaluated.
Feedback is provided to
the client/family.
Systematic
involvement.
Family involvement in a Family involvement in a Family involvement in
partnership perspective partnership perspective a partnership
on rare occasions.
in 60% of cases.
perspective in 75% of
cases.
Family involvement in a
partnership perspective
in all cases.
Marking ⇒
The main pertinent
client/family elements
were evaluated.
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
3. To ensure a
clinical
surveillance
3.1 Validates the Relevant
client’s physical
validation
and psychological
parameters as
well as his
diagnostic tests.
The main pertinent
elements were not
validated.
The main pertinent
elements are validated.
Several validated
elements are not
pertinent.
All key pertinent
elements are validated. are validated.
One or two validated
elements are not
pertinent.
Marking ⇒
Page 269 de 383
No and name of course:180.50Q-SL
Elements of
competency
Providing support to persons requiring
Criteria
Indicators
Quality (ies)
According to MEQ specification (p. 2 of the
Rating scale
Insufficient
Minimal
Average
Superior
Thorough
verification
done
autonomously.
The verification of
elements is not
thorough or
The verification is
thorough but requires
constant supervision.
The verification of
elements is thorough
but requires some
supervision.
The verification of
elements is thorough
without supervision.
The verification of
elements is thorough,
systematic and without
supervision.
Correctly
interprets the
results.
Incorrectly interprets
the results relative to
the clinical situation.
Correctly interprets the
results relative to the
clinical situation in
most cases.
clinical situation in all
cases.
clinical situation in all
cases and provides
systematic follow-up.
3.3 Points out any Communication All pertinent elements
important changes of pertinent
of change have not been
in a timely
changes.
pointed out
manner to allow
or
for an effective
were pointed out but not
intervention.
in a timely manner that
would allow for an
effective intervention.
The main pertinent
elements of change
have been pointed out in
a timely manner that
allows for an effective
intervention.
of change have been
pointed out in a timely
manner that allows for
an effective
intervention.
All the pertinent
elements of change
have been pointed out in
a timely manner that
allows for an effective
intervention and there is
an anticipation of the
changes.
4.1 Identifies
problems relating
to the nursing
field and those
that require
collective
involvement
The main relevant
problems are identified
with some supervision.
The main relevant
The main relevant
problems are identified problems are identified
without supervision and
a systematic follow-up
is initiated.
Marking ⇒
3.2 Interpretation
of results.
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
4. To identify
care giving
needs
Identification
of relevant
problems in an
autonomous
manner.
The main relevant
problems are identified
with regular
supervision.
Marking ⇒
Page 270 de 383
No and name of course:180.50Q-SL
Elements of
competency
Providing support to persons requiring
Criteria
Indicators
Quality(ies)
Identification
of problem
priority.
According to MEQ specification (p. 2 of the
Rating scale
Insufficient
Minimal
Average
Priority problems are
not identified.
Superior
Priority problems are
identified
Marking ⇒
5. To plan the
care and work
activities
5.1 Establishes
nursing care
objectives by
taking into
consideration the
expectations of
the client/family
and also the
clinical situation.
Identification
Realistic care objectives Realistic care objectives
of realistic care are identified, with
are identified, with
objectives in an regular supervision.
some supervision.
autonomous
fashion.
Realistic care objectives
are identified without
supervision.
Precise
formulation of
care objectives
in an
autonomous
fashion.
The care objectives are
accurately formulated
Marking ⇒
accurately formulated,
with regular
supervision.
accurately formulated,
Identification
Pertinent interventions
of pertinent
interventions in regular supervision.
an autonomous
manner.
some supervision.
Marking ⇒
5. To plan the
5.2 Plans nursing
care and work
interventions.
activities.
(CONTINUED)
supervision.
supervision and the
student initiates
innovative relevant
interventions.
Page 271 de 383
Elements of
competency
Criteria
Indicators
Quality (ies)
Rating scale
Insufficient
Minimal
Average
5.3 Organizes
care activities.
Effective
organization of
care activities
in an
autonomous
manner.
Care activities are
organized in an
effective1 manner but
require regular
supervision.
Care activities are
organized in an
efficient and
autonomous manner in
70% of cases.
Care activities are
organized in an
efficient2 and
70% of cases.
6.1 Manifests
helpful attitudes
(empathy,
respect,
authenticity,
compassion,
hope) with the
client/family.
Manifestation
of helpful
attitudes.
Difficulty manifesting
helpful attitudes.
Manifestation of helpful Manifestation of
attitudes in most cases. helpful attitudes in
almost all cases.
6.2 Uses an
approach suitable
to the specific
client/family
characteristics.
Manifestation
of an approach
adapted to the
client/family
Manifestation of an
Manifestation of an
approach not adapted to approach adapted to the
the client/family.
client/family in a
current care situation.
Superior
Care activities are
organized in an
efficient and
all cases.
Marking ⇒
6. To carry out
interventions
Manifestation of helpful
attitudes in all cases.
Marking ⇒
Manifestation of an
approach adapted to
the client/family, with
supervision in a crisis
situation.
Manifestation of an
approach adapted to the
client/family, without
situation.
Marking ⇒
1. EFFECTIVE: the right intervention with the proper material in a reasonable time frame
material)
2. EFFICIENT: effective and with low investment (time,
Page 272 de 383
Elements of
competency
Criteria
Indicators
6. To carry out
6.3 Carries out a
interventions
conversation
(CONTINUED) adapted to the
clinical situation.
Quality (ies)
Appreciation scale
Insufficient
Minimal
Average
Superior
Use of pertinent
verbal and nonverbal
communication
techniques and
relational
strategies1.
Use of verbal
communication
techniques only in a
Use of pertinent verbal
and non-verbal
communication
techniques and
relational strategies in a
and non-verbal
communication
techniques and
relational strategies
with some supervision
in a crisis situation.
and non-verbal
communication
techniques and
relational strategies in
an autonomous manner
in a crisis situation.
6.4 Applies
surveillance and
security
measures.
Thorough
application of
surveillance
and security
measures in an
autonomous
manner.
The application of
surveillance and
security measures is
thorough, with regular
supervision in a current
care situation.
The application of
surveillance and
thorough, with some
supervision in a current
care situation.
The application of
surveillance and
thorough, with some
situation.
The application of
surveillance and
thorough and
autonomous in a crisis
situation.
6.5 Carries out
specific care and
evaluation
methods.
Thorough
execution of
care and
evaluation
measures in an
autonomous
manner.
Thorough execution of
care and evaluation
measures, with regular
supervision.
care and evaluation
measures, with some
supervision.
care and evaluation
measures without
supervision.
6.6 Applies
specific care
protocol and/or
programs.
Thorough
application of
care programs
and/or protocol
in an
autonomous
manner.
Thorough application of
care programs and/or
protocol, with regular
supervision.
protocol, with some
supervision.
protocol without
supervision.
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
1. RELATIONAL STRATEGIES: welcome, support, exploration, search for precision, immediacy, confrontation.
Page 273 de 383
Elements of
competency
Providing support for persons requiring nursing According to MEQ specifications (p. 2 of the
care in mental health
Criteria
Indicators
6. To carry out
6.7 Assists the
interventions
client/family and
(CONTINUED) reinforces
independence.
Quality (ies)
Assistance
suited to the
client/family’s
clinical
condition.
Rating scale
Insufficient
The assistance is suited
to the client/family’s
clinical condition, with
regular supervision in a
Minimal
some supervision in a
Average
clinical condition
without supervision in a
Superior
some supervision in a
crisis situation.
Marking ⇒
6.8 Applies
Exact content
teaching programs
according to the
client/family’s
needs.
Inexact content
Exact content
Marking ⇒
Content is
pertinent to
the clinical
situation in an
autonomous
manner.
Content is pertinent to
the clinical situation,
with constant
supervision.
with regular supervision. with some supervision.
Timing is
appropriate.
Timing is appropriate in
less than 60% of cases.
Timing is appropriate in
60% of cases.
the clinical situation
Marking ⇒
Timing is appropriate in Timing is appropriate in
75% of cases.
all cases.
Marking ⇒
Page 274 de 383
Elements of
competency
Criteria
Indicators
6. To carry out 6.9 Evaluates the
results of his
interventions
(CONTINUED) teaching.
Quality (ies)
Pertinent
evaluation of
the clinical
situation in an
autonomous
manner.
Rating scale
Insufficient
The evaluation is
pertinent to the clinical
situation, with regular
supervision.
Minimal
The evaluation is
situation, with some
supervision.
Average
Superior
The evaluation is
situation without
supervision.
Marking ⇒
7. Administers
medication
7.1 Respects all
the rules of
preparation, how
to administer and
register
medication.
Pertinent
Knowledge of the
knowledge
medication is not
(classification, pertinent in all cases.
therapeutic
effect, main
side effects,
interaction
with other
medication,
compatibility)
of the
medication.
Knowledge of the
medication is pertinent
in all cases.
Thorough
The verification of the
verification of prescription is thorough,
the
prescription in
an
autonomous
manner.
The verification of the
prescription is thorough
in all cases.
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
Page 275 de 383
No et name of course: 180.50Q-SL
Elements of
competency
Criteria
Indicators
7. To
administer
medication
(CONTINUED)
Rating scale
Quality
(ies)
Insufficient
Minimal
Preparation and dosing
are done with dexterity
in most cases
Average
Superior
Preparation
and dosing
done with
dexterity
are done with difficulty
are done with dexterity
in all cases
Preparation
and dosing
done in
secure
manner
done in non secure
manner
done in secure manner
in all cases
Stringent
Registration of
registration of medication is stringent,
medication
done
autonomously
Registration of
medication is stringent
without supervision
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
7.2 Determines
proper conditions
of application for
prescription
Decision
whether or
not to
administer
the
medication is
made
autonomously
Decision whether or not
to administer the
medication is pertinent,
with regular supervision
to administer the
medication is pertinent,
to administer the
medication is pertinent
without supervision
Marking ⇒
Comments, observations
Page 276 de 383
Elements of
competency
Criteria
Indicators
7.3 Identifies
7. To
alternatives to the
administer
medication
medication
(CONTINUED)
Realization context :
According to MEQ specifications
Rating scale
Quality
(ies)
Insufficient
Pertinent
Few pertinent
alternatives to alternatives to the
the
medication
medication
Minimal
Average
Superior
Pertinent alternatives to
the medication in most
cases
Pertinent alternatives to Pertinent alternatives to
the medication in
the medication in all
almost all cases
cases
Little relevant
information is conveyed
Relevant information is
conveyed in most cases
Relevant information is Relevant information is
conveyed in almost all conveyed in all cases.
cases.
Conveys
complete
information
The key elements of
information are not
conveyed
The key elements of
information are
conveyed.
The majority of key
Nearly all the key
elements of information elements of information
are conveyed
are conveyed
Appropriate
surveillance
elements and
follow-ups
Appropriate surveillance The main surveillance
elements but follow-ups elements and the followare missing or
ups are appropriate
inappropriate
Marking ⇒
7.4 Conveys
Conveys
information on the relevant
medication to the information
client/family
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
7.5 Carries out
surveillance and
follow-ups after
administering the
medication
Most of the surveillance
elements and the
follow-ups are
appropriate
Nearly all the
surveillance elements
and the follow-ups are
appropriate
Marking ⇒
Comments, observation:
Page 277 de 383
Elements of
competency
8. To evaluate
interventions
and the results
of care
Criteria
Indicators
8.1 Evaluates
results obtained
with the
client/family and
relative to
satisfaction of
needs
Quality (ies)
Accurate
appreciation
of results
obtained
Rating scale
Insufficient
Minimal
Accurate appreciation of
results obtained in less
than 75% of cases
Or
Inaccurate appreciation
results obtained in 75%
of cases
Average
Superior
results obtained in all
cases
Marking ⇒
Systematic
Verification is not
verification of systematic.
satisfaction of
client/family’s
needs
Verification is
systematic
Relevant
Relevant changes
changes done completed with
autonomously supervision
Relevant changes done
without supervision
Appropriate
delay for
changes
Delay in changes is
appropriate
Marking ⇒
8.2 Modifies the
care plan
Marking ⇒
Delay in changes is
inappropriate
Marking ⇒
Page 278 de 383
Elements of
competency
8. To evaluate
interventions
and results of
care
(CONTINUED)
Criteria
Indicators
8.3 Evaluates the
care activities
entrusted to other
persons
Quality (ies)
Accurate
evaluation
without
supervision
Rating scale
Insufficient
The evaluation is
accurate with constant
supervision
Minimal
Average
Superior
The evaluation is
accurate with regular
supervision
The evaluation is
accurate with some
supervision
The evaluation is
accurate without
supervision
The follow-up is
effective, with regular
supervision
The follow-up is
effective, with some
supervision
The follow-up is
effective without
supervision
Marking ⇒
Effective
The follow-up is
follow-up
effective, with constant
done
supervision
autonomously
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
Page 279 de 383
Elements of
competency
9. To assure
continuity of
care and followup
Criteria
Indicators
Rating scale
Quality
(ies)
9.1 Keeps
Keeping
accurate notes on pertinent
file according to
notes
the model
appropriate for the
environment
Insufficient
Minimal
Average
Superior
Less than 75% of
essential information is
present in the notes
75% of essential
information is present in
the notes
All essential information
is present in the notes
Precise note-taking, with
regular supervision
some supervision
Precise note-taking
without supervision
Precise note- Precise note-taking, with
taking done
regular supervision
autonomously
some supervision
Precise note-taking
without supervision
Marking ⇒
Precise notetaking
(including
terminology)
without
supervision
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
Notes are
Notes are not written in
written
acceptable English
(spelling,
readability) in
acceptable
English
Notes are written in
acceptable English
Marking ⇒
Page 280 de 383
Elements of
competency
Criteria
Indicators
9.2 Provides a
report when
continuity of
care and follow- leaving the unit
up
(CONTINUED)
9. To assure
Quality(s)
Rating scale
Insufficient
Minimal
Average
Superior
Report
contains
pertinent
information
The essential information
is not present in the
report
All essential information
is present in the report
Report
content is
accurate
without
supervision
The report content is
accurate, with regular
supervision
accurate without
supervision
Report
content is
concise
without
supervision
concise, with regular
supervision
concise without
supervision
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
Page 281 de 383
Elements of
competency
Criteria
Indicators
9.3 Applies
administrative
care continuity
procedures to
and follow-up
(CONTINUED) particular
situations
9. To assure
Rating scale
Quality
(ies)
Insufficient
Minimal
Average
Superior
Thorough
Application is thorough,
application of with regular supervision
administrative
procedures
done
autonomously
Application is thorough,
Application is thorough
without supervision
Adequate
collaboration
Collaboration is not
adequate
Collaboration is
adequate in the majority
of cases
Collaboration is
adequate in almost all
cases
Search for
solutions
when faced
with
particular
problems
Search for solutions is
rare
done in the majority of
cases
done in almost all cases done in all cases
Marking ⇒
9.4 Collaboration
with the caregiving team and
the
multidisciplinary
team
Collaboration is
adequate in all cases
Marking ⇒
Marking ⇒
9.5 Orients the
client/family
toward resources
appropriate to the
situation
Appropriate
Orientation is
orientation
appropriate, with
done
constant supervision
autonomously
Orientation is
Orientation is
appropriate, with regular appropriate, with some
supervision
supervision
Orientation is
appropriate without
supervision
Note: In the original document, there is an additional page entitled Critical Incidents in which teachers can take note of events not included in this grid.
Page 282 de 383
Tool 6.J
“The perception a student has of his own
competency seems to have a greater influence on
his motivation and therefore, on his commitment to
the task, than his actual competency” (Tardif,
1992)
Task 12
Communicate evaluation results and provide students with feedback
Communicating results and feedback
A. How to communicate the results of the summative evaluations
B. Summary of feedback characteristics
C. The affective dimension of feedback
A.
How to communicate the results of summative evaluations94
The following text illustrates the major impact resulting from the various ways of conveying results to
students and proposes possible methods for teachers to counter any negative impact.
“I’m hopeless in math”, “I just can’t seem to learn how to spell”, “Languages are not my thing”, “Don’t
pay attention to my pronunciation, I know it’s pathetic”…
Most teachers realize how limiting such statements are, how deeply rooted and enduring such beliefs can
be, and the disastrous consequences they have on the learning of children or adolescents who affirm them
as well as how much energy must be devoted to deal with them. … In fact, the perception a student has of
his own competency seems to have a greater influence on his motivation and, therefore on his
commitment to the task, than his actual competency (Tardif, 1992).
Therefore “if an individual, particularly during childhood, shows a tendency to comply with the judgment
and identity conferred upon him by his entourage, he may very well end up by confirming these to
varying degrees” (Kourilsky, 1999). Consequently, it is our role as educators to do doing everything in
our power to prevent these negative beliefs from taking root.
The communication of results plays a major role in the perception students have of their own
competency. Whether communicating results from grading, comments or assigned points, one important
guideline is to act in a non-prejudicial manner toward the student, to help him every way we can to
maintain a positive image, or at the very least not to tarnish his image. Strangely enough, it seems that
obtaining an “insufficient” grading or a score of 2/10 on a writing assignment is less damaging to a
student’s image than the comment: writing ability = not yet acquired. In other words, it is less painful for
a student to fail a test in English than to be told he is incompetent in writing. What is at stake is the
development of our students’ self image, and that is of great importance. Should we not therefore support
the communication of results in a contextualized form?
Another argument in favour of contextualized communication of results is its profoundly inferential
nature, as reiterated by M. Romainville (2000). “To evaluate competencies is make fundamental
inferences: based on the given student performance, I then judge that he has probably mastered a given
94
FUNDP – Namur, p. 11. [http://www.det.fundp.ac.be/~mho/evaluation.htm].
Page 283 de 383
competency [...]. The broader the competency, the greater the inference and therefore, the greater the
probability for error.”
For example, to evaluate in a summative manner a competency such as reading implies that the
competency itself must be observed in a specific context. For instance, the task could involve a series of
questions based on an informational text. Based on the student’s performance on this test, to infer his
competency in reading is an ENORMOUS leap. (If a student does not succeed, is it because of gaps in his
reading skills or is it due to difficulties in his ability to draft answers?) Noting that the student has passed
or failed the exercise does not, in itself, carry much inference. Would it not therefore be more adequate,
when communicating the results, to refer to the required task rather than declare a student incompetent in
reading? The competency grid, used internally, would then greatly benefit teachers during the learning
stage, the preparation of the evaluation and the analysis of student results.
Should we banish the summative evaluation of knowledge and skills?
An analysis of the temporal model described below would probably lead us to reserve summative
evaluations exclusively for the assessment of competencies and to cease conducting any summative
evaluation of isolated knowledge and skills. Pedagogically speaking this “recommendation” is
roadworthy and yet, if we were to impose it straight off, in such a radical fashion, would this not pose a
great risk?
There is a fear among teachers that: “Formative evaluations are all very nice, but students will no longer
study…”, “If it doesn’t count, the students won’t work”. “They only work if there are points involved”.
“They already finish their homework on the bus to school … now they probably won’t even hand it in!”
To shed some light on this matter, let us discuss briefly a motivational factor noted by R. Viau (1994).
This factor is the perception a student has of the value of an activity, that is, the judgment he makes on
the importance or usefulness of an activity relative to the goals he is pursuing. If the activity in question
corresponds, for example, to the resolution of 15 homework equations, the study of Latin vocabulary, or
the correction of a dictation with justification of grammatical agreements, the underlying question is:
“Why should I do what the teacher asks me to do? Why should I study specific information or train to
develop a particular skill, if not to obtain a good grade?”
Research results show that, most students are in school to pursue:
—
performance goals exclusively (they want to complete successfully the activity for the grade, the
diploma, etc.) The students express this in statements such as: “Does this homework count?”,
“How many points for the exercises?” “I scored 9 ½ on the test!”).
—
learning purposes exclusively (they place a high value on an activity because it enables them to
learn more on the subject, for example, the (rare)” student who prepares for a test by studying all
the pages of the syllabus, even though the teacher has excluded some of them.
—
a combination of both learning and performance goals.
Eliminating the grading system overnight risks destabilizing and de-motivating those who pursue
performance goals exclusively. Does this mean we are to remain locked into a rigid school system that
has conditioned our students for too many years already?
One solution would implement a class spirit oriented to formative evaluations (identify, value and
learn from errors, give less importance to points, stop reinforcing only correct answers, show interest in
the process, etc.) with a view to helping students pursue goals and progress at school. The presence of
grades can be maintained for a period of time, given that evolution takes time. I personally experimented
with this hypothesis and found that it took at least one trimester (from September to December) for my 4th
year students to progressively come around to the logic of the formative evaluation (Houart et
Vastersavendts, 1995).
Page 284 de 383
To opt for a subtle alchemy, a well-blended cocktail of summative and formative evaluation of knowledge
and skills fits in very well with the formative evaluation philosophy. The teacher can, for example, take
into account the successes and ignore failures as long as the student demonstrates that he has overcome
his difficulties. Implementing such practices favours the evolution of student concepts, while maintaining
the ‘pressure’ that encourages them to study.
The works of Viau, described above, offer further encouragement for taking the time needed in class to
show students how the subject matter can be useful to them or, even better, generate student interest in the
task to accomplish via class discussions, or better still, create links between student preoccupations and
what they are in the process of learning. But here we are exceeding here the specific scope of competency
assessment.
In addition, if the implementation of a competency requires the mobilization of a set of resources, I don’t
see why we should not allow ourselves to evaluate, at least partially, in summative fashion, the mastery of
these resources, and therefore, this knowledge and these skills.”
B.
Summary of feedback characteristics95
“Feedback is probably the best way of influencing a person’s competencies in a learning situation.”
This statement by Louise Lafortune (2001) sheds light on the various characteristics of effective
feedback.
“According to Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995), feedback is information provided to a person in a
learning situation about the quality of his work. Feedback impacts a learner’s motivation and helps him
better evaluate his progress, understand his performance, maintain his efforts, and receive encouragement.
The authors add that feedback is probably the best way to impact a person’s competencies in a learning
situation. Feedback can take several forms and be more elaborate than a few words on an individual’s
progress. The following paragraphs outline general feedback characteristics according to Wlodkowski and
Ginsberg.
Feedback for information rather than control
We must favour feedback that encourages increased effectiveness, creativity and autonomy. For example,
“You identified three major information items. I appreciate the clarity of your work”, rather than “You
have made progress and you are meeting the objectives that I established for this course.”
Feedback based on objectives that have been agreed upon beforehand
Persons in a learning situation appreciate feedback that provides them with information on their degree of
attainment of pre-determined objectives. This enables them to clarify the criteria used to evaluate their
learning and identify what remains to be accomplished for their learning to be even more effective. This
information can then be used to guide their efforts, practice and performance.
95
Translated from L. D. C. Lafortune, Accompagnement socioconstructiviste. Pour s’approprier une réforme en éducation,
Sainte-Foy, Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2001, p. 109 and 110.
Page 285 de 383
Well-targeted feedback is constructive
It is difficult to improve performance if general terms are used to describe the progress. Most people
prefer to receive detailed comments and precise suggestions, which are more likely to help them improve.
Quantitative feedback
Quantitative feedback can be advantageous if it corresponds to the learning context. It must be precise
and provide proof that minor improvements have taken place. Highlighting these minor improvements
can have long-term effects.
Feedback given at opportune moments (without excessive delay)
This refers to feedback given in an opportune moment rather than immediately. A delay in feedback can
sometimes allow for a better learning experience. For example, some people are ill at ease if they are
immediately corrected after completing a task. In some cases, a delay can help lessen anxiety, for
instance, judging a public performance. In general, feedback must be given without delay, but we must
take into account the fact that sometimes a delay can be beneficial.
Frequent feedback
Frequent feedback is more useful when learning a new concept. Generally speaking, feedback should be
given when the individual has the best chance of improving. It becomes more difficult to modify one’s
way of doing things when errors have accumulated.
Positive feedback
Positive feedback emphasizes improvements and progress rather than deficiencies and errors. It is an
excellent form of feedback, since it increases the subject’s intrinsic motivation, his well-being, his
perception of his own competency as well as his positive attitude toward the person giving the feedback.
Negative feedback, for its part, leads to discouragement. Even if a person has committed errors, we can
use positive feedback by indicating that the number of errors has been reduced from what it was
previously. Positive feedback can be used at the same time as constructive feedback.
Personal and differentiated feedback
Differentiated feedback is feedback that uses self-comparison and emphasizes the personal improvement
observed since the last learning activity. In the learning of a skill or a procedure, evaluating small
progresses can be encouraging. The timing of this feedback can be important. The authors also
recommend that we ask learners what type of feedback they prefer. It is important to be able to recognize
the best time to give feedback. We sometimes realize that the person receiving feedback is not disposed to
accept the comments at that time. It is also important to make sure that the feedback has been well
understood.
Wlodkowski (1988) suggests a number of effective feedback characteristics. According to him, effective
feedback must:
-
be sincere
-
provide details and highlight subtleties
-
be shared among members of a group
-
be given out in measured portions
-
be presented publicly or privately, depending on the context
-
be respectful”
Page 286 de 383
C.
The affective dimension of feedback96
Roland Louis (1999) underscores the importance of taking into account the affective dimension of
feedback, which has a major influence particularly on student motivation.
“We recognize that there is feedback that deals predominantly with the affective dimension, particularly
motivational characteristics that influence the manner in which a student approaches a task and identifies
the strategies needed to accomplish it. This type of feedback tries to motivate the student to effectively
undertake a task and succeed at it.
The works of Chunk and Cox (1986) on the impact of feedback in relation the student’s effort to
accomplish a task, to the perception he has of his competency relative to the task and his effectiveness to
succeed at it, strike a chord in us. Included is a summary of results of the studies proposed by Viau (1994,
p. 60 and 61).
Feedback on student effort to accomplish a task improves the opinion they have of their competency to
accomplish the task (Schunk, 1982).
The students who received feedback on their abilities (for example: you succeed because you are good in
arithmetic) saw the opinion they had of their competency improve more rapidly than that of students who
had either received feedback on their efforts (for example: you succeed because you work hard), or
feedback on both their efforts and their ability (for example: you succeed because you work hard and you
are good in arithmetic) (Schunk, 1983).
In the study, the three groups of students received feedback in the following manner. Those who got
feedback on their abilities on two separate occasions, those who got feedback on their abilities, then later,
feedback on their efforts; and those who got feedback on their efforts on two separate occasions. The
students who received the ability-ability feedback sequence, or ability-effort feedback sequence saw the
opinion they had of their competency improve more than students who had received the effort-effort
feedback sequence (Schunk, 1984).
A few characteristics of effective feedback
Wiggins (1993) proposes a set of essential characteristics for effective feedback. We have listed those that
we believe can be applied to a general class context. To be effective, feedback should:
1.
Provide the student with information that confirms whether or not the task was accomplished and
identify support needed.
The student needs external feedback to exercise control and make the adjustments needed to
successfully accomplish the task. Feedback that specifies a situation without providing the student
with a guide for doing better would be ineffective. Even worse is feedback that deals with
generalities without any relation to progress achieved: “If you put forth a little more effort, you
would succeed in accomplishing the task.”
2.
Compare current accomplishments, the orientation of the task and desired results.
The student needs guidance and validation relative to what he does and what he plans to do in order
to meet expected results.
3.
96
Be as immediate as possible, understandable and directly usable by the student.
1999, p. 112 and 113.
Page 287 de 383
Feedback given too late is not effective. If the student cannot understand the feedback it is useless.
For example: A teacher returns a corrected paper to a student who submitted the work two weeks
earlier, with the following comment in the margin: “This paragraph is not clear.”
4.
Evaluate the student’s progress in relation to the accomplishment of the task.
The student’s progress should not be evaluated in relation to other students. Rather, it is important to
provide the student with details, examples showing what should be done versus what is being done
to achieve the desired results.
5.
Use descriptive language
For example: “You performed an addition instead of a subtraction; that is probably why you got a
higher number”. Feedback that evaluates a student in comparison to others is ineffective: “You are
the only one to have gotten this result.”
6.
Make a diagnosis and recommendations specific to the error that has been observed.
For example: “You performed an addition instead of a subtraction; that is probably why you got a
higher number.”
7.
Allow the student to see tangible results from his efforts.
Within a school context, one tangible result is the difference in grade between an initial assignment
and a later assignment where efforts have been invested into the mix. Feedback should help the
student realize that the efforts he made following the first task are worthwhile.
Page 288 de 383
Document 6.A
Evaluation in an authentic situation: tools97
Chapter 3 of this learning kit, “The vision and impact of study programs centered on competencies”,
initially introduced the concept and foundations of the authentic evaluation. Document 6. A specifies the
tools that support this type of evaluation in a text (p. 83-94) by Roland Louis (1999).
Tools for an evaluation in an authentic situation
The measurement of complex performances can be done in two ways: based on specific tasks
proposed to the student, or through the use of a portfolio.
Measuring based on specific tasks
When developing the necessary tasks to measure complex performances, the teacher must consider
the organizational characteristics and types of performance required by the task.
The tasks can be subdivided, on the organizational level, into tasks done within class periods and
tasks performed outside the classroom period. The tasks can be designed for individual or group
accomplishments. In the context of an authentic evaluation, we generally resort to situational tasks.
In placing the student in contextualized situations, these tasks will not only call on declarative or
procedural knowledge, but conditional knowledge as well.
Several authors have proposed tasks that make it possible to measure high-level intellectual skills in
students. Marzano and others (1993) for instance, suggest a set of situational tasks that make it
possible to measure complex performances. These authors classify the tasks according to the type of
performance they induce in the student. They present tasks involving comparison, classification,
induction and deduction, tasks dealing with analysis of errors, arguments, putting divergent ideas
into perspective, tasks involving decision-making, development of definitions, historical or scientific
research, problem resolution and tasks dealing with invention.
The ministère de l’Éducation du Québec, in study programs developed for the entire Province,
defines the intellectual operations that high-school students must be able to master upon completion
of the study program. Here are a few examples.
97
1999, p. 83-97.
Page 289 de 383
Table 7.1 Examples of intellectual operations linked to a discipline
Discipline
Selected intellectual operations
Put in mathematical form (illustrate, transpose, translate, etc.),
Mathematics
Perform operations (calculate, solve, transpose, verify, etc.),
Analyze or synthesize (deduce, conclude, prove and explain).
Write a speech
French
—
Choose, organize and apply.
Comprehension of speech
—
English as
language
a
Identify, explain and react.
second Language comprehension
—
Deduce, discover, repeat, research and compare.
Drafting a speech
—
Rephrase, question, state and discuss.
Physical sciences
Characterize, connect and resolve problems.
History
Describe, analyze and synthesize.
Geography
Situate (locate an area or geographic location),
Describe (characterize, recognize a geographic location)
Connect (establish a relation of similarities, differences or
interdependence and specify the causes or consequences of two or
more geographic locations).
Task development
Figure 7.1 shows an example of an inductive task, adapted from Marzano and others (1993).
We will use this task to shed light on its general structure. That is:
— a problem situation that contextualizes the task. Situating the task is designed to give the
student a better representation of the task and stimulate his interest for the activity.
Example:
Supermarkets spend a lot of money each week to distribute advertising material promoting their
sales. Each supermarket states that it has better prices than its competitors.
We should mention that the problem situation goes beyond this text. We can consider the
overall task as a complete problem situation. However, an initial scenario, like the one in the
example, is useful for the neophyte student.
Page 290 de 383
Supermarkets spend a lot of money each week to distribute
advertising material promoting their sales. Each supermarket states
problem situation
that it has better prices than its competitors.
You are asked to study a group of advertising circulars from several
supermarkets in order to:
—
find identical articles being advertised;
—
determine if supermarkets, on the whole, offer lower prices
than local grocers and compensate for the low price by the actions
higher price of another item.
When considering the price, pay attention to the weight, size or
quality of the merchandise.
Take note of how supermarkets present their ads (items, prices) and
entice the consumer to buy in their store rather than the competitor’s. instructions
Based on your analysis, formulate at least two conclusions on the
perception that writers of circulars have of consumers. A perception
that guides them in their desire to attract customers to supermarkets.
Your conclusions can begin with sentences such as:
—
The specialists who write these advertising circulars must think
that consumers…
—
The specialists who write these advertising circulars for expected results
supermarkets must believe that…
Support each conclusion with examples taken from the advertising
circulars.
You must present your work to your team in order to consolidate the application context
information and prepare a report for the local radio station that will be
broadcast next month.
You work will be assessed based on the attached rating scale.
rating scale
Figure 7.1 Example of an introductory task
—
The principal actions that must be undertaken by the student. The task must be clearly
identified with the complex abilities that the student must use.
Example:
You are asked to study a group of advertising circulars from several supermarkets in order to:
—
locate the identical items being advertised;
— determine if the supermarkets, on the whole, offer low prices than local grocers, and if the
low price of a given item is offset by the higher price of another item.
Based on your analysis, formulate at least two conclusions concerning the perceptions that the
writers of these circulars have of consumers and that guide them in their goal of attracting
customers to supermarkets.
Page 291 de 383
Example:
When considering price, pay attention to weight, size and quality of the merchandise.
Take note of how supermarkets present their ads (items, prices) and entice the consumer to buy
in their store rather than the competitor’s.
—
The characteristics of the results expected for this task.
Example:
Your conclusions can begin with sentences such as:
—
The specialists who write these advertising circulars must think that consumers…
—
The specialists who write these advertising circulars for supermarkets must believe that…
Support each conclusion with examples taken from the advertising circulars.
—
the definition of an audience and the real context of application of the results of actions.
Example:
You must present your work to your team in order to consolidate the information and prepare a
report for the local radio station, which will be broadcast next month
—
the rating scale.
The instructions and details f the work may vary depending on student characteristics. For
elementary level students and those enrolled in a special class, particular care must be given to
the instructions and details. For students at a more advanced level, the teacher may provide less
frequent instructions and details, or none at all, based on targeted goals. This will result in a
situation where the student will have to resolve a problem that is more or less undefined and
vague. As underlined by Frederiksen (1984) and Bennett (1993), the problems that we
experience in real life are generally vague and undetermined.
Developing a rating scale
Given the importance of a rating scale in the development of a task, we believe it is necessary
to look a little more closely at this tool.
Measuring performances, whether complex or not, whether in an authentic situation or not,
means using evaluation tasks with rating scales that allow judges to make judgments.
In their approach to rating student performance, judges use well-defined criteria with which
they are familiar. The term “rubric” is increasingly common when naming these criteria. This
term comes from the Latin rubrica, which means “red earth, ochre”, the substance used in
Antiquity to mark important events. These rubrics represent for us, the critical or essential
attributes of the competency we wish to measure. Each rubric or dimension of the competency
describes a set of observable performances that range from the highest performance level to the
lowest one.
In order to better evaluate the student’s progress towards his goal and help him improve in his
learning process, the authors define performance according to a scale of three, four or five
levels. In the following pages, we provide some examples98 of rubrics and performance levels
in use in some school environments. These tools are presented for the sole purpose of
promoting a better idea of the type of tools that can measure complex performances.
98
We thank the students enrolled in initial master class training at the Université de Sherbrooke (third year, fall 1997) who
provided us with these examples.
Page 292 de 383
We will also provide examples of tools devised to measure complex performances. According
to the characteristics of the task, we classify these tools based on whether or not they induce a
more of less authentic evaluation situation.
Example 1: Measuring mathematical performance (Problem resolution)
The period for garage sales coincides with the arrival of the nice weather. Your mother calls on
you to ask you to help her get the items ready that she wants to sell on the following day,
Saturday.
She wants to put 20 square-shaped vases for sale, each one measures 10 cm in width. She
would like to sell 30 flowerpot holders. Each one measures 20 cm in length and 15 cm in
width. She also would like to get rid of the 50 knick-knacks lying around the basement. These
knick-knacks measure on average 5 square centimetres each. Your mother only has two tables
on which to display these articles. One table measures 150 cm by 60 cm and the other, 125 cm
by 95 cm. The sale permit granted by the municipality cost $5 and stipulates that only one table
is allowed.
Your mother asks you to:
—
pick the right table and set it up;
—
price each article for sale by category, knowing she wants to make a $50 profit.
She also expects you to list on a piece of paper, all the articles for sale, the quantity, the price
per unit, total sales and total profit made.
Page 293 de 383
Your work will be evaluated based on the following grid99 (see figure 7.2):
R1.
—
Applies the appropriate concepts, operations 4
and transformation rules with ease and without
error.
—
Applies the concepts, operations and
transformation rules that were studied well, but 3
with minimal errors,
—
Makes several errors in the use of concepts, 2
operations and transformation rules that were
studied. .
—
Makes numerous application errors.
Mastery of the mathematical
content
R2.
Capacity to solve problems
1
a) Effective use of information:
—
—
—
—
Accurately identifies all the pertinent 4
information and highlights the missing
information.
3
Identifies all pertinent information.
2
Identifies most of the pertinent information.
1
Omits some pertinent information.
b) Problem resolution process:
R3.
—
Presents an effective and very satisfactory
4
solution to the problem.
—
Presents an acceptable solution to the problem.
3
—
Presents a solution that is not quite acceptable.
2
—
Does not succeed in finding a solution.
1
—
Communicates the results clearly and
accurately while making effective use of
4
communication support.
—
Communicates the results clearly with adequate
3
use of communication support.
—
The communication of results is not quite clear.
—
The
communication
incomprehensible.
Capacity to communicate
of
results
is 2
1
99
A student situated at level 1 or 2 can, with the teacher’s help, accede to a superior level (3 or 4).
Page 294 de 383
Figure 7.2 Rating grid for the resolution of mathematical problems (example 1)
The choice of headings for the example grid obviously expresses some of the evaluator’s
expectations with regard to observable performances. Another evaluator might suggest different
headings. Let us look at what these headings evaluate.
Mastery of mathematical content: This dimension is designed to evaluate procedural knowledge
linked to concepts, operations and transformation rules studied in class.
Capacity to resolve problems: This dimension has to do with evaluating performance in the
resolution of more or less complex problems. This dimension is very important because it helps
determine if the student is able to apply declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge to
find a solution to a problem found in everyday life.
Communication: The importance of this dimension is justified insofar as we believe that
communication is an important component of any social context. Problem resolution becomes
interesting when the individual is able to communicate the resolution effectively and even
convince others of its value.
Example 2: Measuring French proficiency (written communication)
At Sainte-Justine hospital there are a number of hospitalized children that are 10 years old.
They can neither go back home nor go to school. Our school wants to offer a collection of
stories of interest to children of this age. You must write a story that will get their attention. The
best texts will become part of a collection to be published by the hospital and provided to the
children for free.
Your short story cannot exceed two pages in length. It may deal with a true story or an
imaginary one. The story must be pleasant and amusing.
The panel selecting the texts will use the following grid (see figure 7.3):
R1.
Text organization
The text is perfectly structured: all the ideas are well 4
put together, there are no contradictions, there is very
good use of verb tenses.
The text is well structured: all the ideas are well put
together, there are few contradictions, and there is good 3
use of verb tenses.
The text is not well structured: certain ideas are poorly 2
presented; there is incorrect use of verb tenses.
1
The text is very poorly structured and incoherent.
Page 295 de 383
R2.
Sentence organization
The punctuation marks are adequate and all the 4
sentences are well constructed.
There are a few punctuation mistakes (2 or 3), but all
3
the sentences make sense and are well constructed.
There are several punctuation mistakes (less than 7)
2
and some sentences are not well constructed.
Nearly all the sentences present errors of construction
and meaning (more than 7 errors).
1
R3.
Respect
of lexicon
The words are written correctly (less than 2 mistakes).
Most words are written correctly (between 1 and 7
mistakes).
Several words are written incorrectly (between 7 and
15 mistakes).
Nearly all the words are misspelled (more than 15
mistakes).
4
3
2
1
R4.
Respect
of grammar rules
The agreements of gender and number are correct as 4
well as the verb endings (less than 2 mistakes).
The agreements of gender and number are correct as
3
well as the verb endings (between 1 and 7 mistakes).
There are several mistakes in both cases (between 7
2
and 15 mistakes).
R5.
Story interest
There are way too many mistakes in both cases.
1
The story is very interesting, amusing and original.
4
The story is rather interesting, amusing and original.
3
The story is interesting, but lacks originality.
2
The story is not very interesting.
1
Figure 7.3 Rating grid for written communication in French (example 2)
Page 296 de 383
Example 3: Performance in history (critical analysis)
Task
The new Secretary General of the United Nations has retained your services to draw a
composite of one of the many conflicts taking place in the last fifty years. He is insistent that
the thinking of young people like you is the best way to further reflection on how to resolve
world conflicts. He therefore asks you to select a contemporary conflict that raises questions for
you and to draft a critical analysis in official report format for him. Following this you will be
invited to present your conclusions in front of a study committee set up for the occasion.
Instructions
Your work includes a written report and an oral report. You will work in teams of two.
Your written report should be approximately six pages long. It must be typed, double-spaced
and handed in by end of May. In this report, the reader must see that there is a critique of the
information being offered. In other words, you must add a personal touch to your analysis.
In the oral presentation, one of the team members will present a summary of the key facts of the
conflict; the other will put the situation into perspective. You will be allotted 10 minutes to
present to the class.
Unfolding:
—
Form a two-person team.
—
Describe the problematics of the conflict.
—
Develop a hypothesis linked to the problematics.
—
Conduct research at the library.
—
Compare and analyze the different viewpoints exposed in writings you consulted and
summarize them.
—
Confirm or describe the starting hypothesis.
—
Write a report according to the rules studied.
—
You are at liberty, throughout the task, to consult your teacher and ask for assistance.
—
The Secretary General will rate your report according to the attached grid (see figure 7.4).
Page 297 de 383
R1.
Respect
of historical setting
The stages of the historical setting are entirely 4
respected.
The stages of the historical setting are partially
3
respected.
The stages of the historical setting are not well
2
respected.
The stages of the historical setting are not respected at
all.
1
R2.
Quality of the critical
analysis
The report highlights the conflict’s essential points and 4
presents a coherent assessment.
The report highlights most of the essential points of the
3
conflict and presents a coherent assessment.
The report highlights some of the conflict’s essential
2
points and presents a somewhat coherent assessment.
It is difficult to determine the conflict’s essential points
and the resulting assessment is either incoherent or 1
absent.
R3.
Oral communication
The communication is clear and easily comprehensible 4
for the audience.
Certain elements of the communication are ambiguous,
3
but it remains comprehensible for the audience.
The ambiguity of the message
comprehension difficult for the audience.
R4.
Written communication
makes
its
2
The communication is confusing and disjointed.
1
The written report has fewer than 5 mistakes.
4
The written report has between 5 and 10 mistakes.
3
The written report has between 10 and 15 mistakes.
2
The written report has more than 15 mistakes.
1
Figure 7.4 Rating grid for a critical analysis in history (example 3)
Page 298 de 383
Importance of the student rating grid
One of the functions of the rating grid is to help students become aware of the characteristics of
a task that is accomplished effectively. It also helps students achieve more effective selfregulation in the achievement of the task. It will especially help the student determine the type
of feedback needed. It may not be evident but the use of rating grids can help re-orient students
from a perspective of graded results (grades expressed in percentages) where the grade itself
seems to be the goal; to a model that encourages students to identify the realization stages of a
performance. The teacher should therefore not only introduce a rating grid for the task, but also
pay particular attention to teaching the students how to make effective use of it. However, grids
like the one presented here, are relatively complex for students, particularly those in elementary
school.
The teacher should begin with more simple grids when used as objects of teaching. We suggest
that the teacher begin with checklists. […]
Later, the teacher can introduce the students to more complex grids. The teacher could, for
instance, ask the students to construct a rating grid for an oral presentation that will be given in
class.
Developing the stages of a task
We have seen several examples of tasks that reflect authentic situations as much as possible.
Experience has shown that when it is time to develop tasks of this nature, difficulties often
arise. The steps outlined below have been tested with students in master classes. They helped
the students develop authentic evaluation tasks.
Step 1: Determine the content of the discipline. The first stage consists in determining the
content of the discipline, which will be the object of an evaluation, and the academic level in
question. For example, a teacher might be interested in the drafting of a speech for a fourth year
elementary school French course. Another might choose photosynthesis in biology, for a first
year high school course.
Step 2: Determine the action based on the performance to be evaluated. Since the
performance observed will be the work or production of a student, we must identify at this
stage what type of production will elicit the type of performance from the student that we wish
to observe. The production or work must call upon the student’s declarative, procedural and
conditional knowledge. For instance, the teacher could choose a written argument for the
student’s production. In science or mathematics, it could be the construction of a double entry
table, a graph, a model, a process, etc. In social sciences, the teacher might choose the
construction of a route, the development of a plan or geographic map, the production of a
report, a document, etc.
Step 3: Identify the necessary knowledge. At this stage, it is necessary, by describing them as
performances, to identify the declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge required by
the student to successfully accomplish the task. In an actual evaluation, declarative and
procedural knowledge is easier to identify. Procedural knowledge often underlies declarative
knowledge.
Example 1 Procedural knowledge in mathematics: to accurately resolve a set of equations
of the second degree.
In this example, the declarative knowledge (necessary mathematical calculations) is part
of the resolution process. If we want the final answer to deal with conditional knowledge,
the performance can be defined in the following way (example 2):
Page 299 de 383
Example 2 Conditional knowledge: to choose and validate a solution that resolves the
given problem as effectively as possible.
To evaluate conditional knowledge as in the previous example, we must be sure that the
problem variables are not limited to equations of the 2nd degree. The teacher must see to
it that the student’s judgment is used to identify the best solution among several. There
may be situations where the teacher will be forced to limit himself to declarative
knowledge. This may not be the ideal situation and the classroom will cause certain
limitations. In the following example, the teacher has just presented declarative
knowledge and wants to verify if the students learned it well. See example 3.
Example 3 Declarative knowledge in history: proper timeline, comments and explanation
on the main causes for the Patriots’ rebellion.
We must keep in mind that for learning to endure, the student must be able to implement
all three types of knowledge.
Step 4: Select the required intellectual operations. It is now time to select the type of
intellectual operation that the task will solicit from the student. Here are a few examples of
possible intellectual operations: to compare, deduce, analyze, classify, argue, resolve a
problem, make a decision, take different perspectives into account, and experiment.
We have also included examples of intellectual operations adopted by the MEQ with regard to
the teaching of specific disciplines in high school. So, the teacher can refer to study programs
when choosing intellectual operations. We should emphasize here that the complexity of the
performance increases based on the number of intellectual operations required for the task.
Therefore the first time we develop a task for an authentic situation, it is easier to select two
intellectual operations only.
Let us return to example 1 above. We could reason that the resolution of equations would be
useful in a classification or problem solving task. We therefore call upon these two intellectual
operations (to classify and resolve a problem) in relation to procedural knowledge.
In example 3, the teacher could choose to divide the declarative knowledge of history into two
intellectual operations: to make deductions and to prepare an argument.
Stage 5: Write up the task. When writing up the task, think of a problem situation that is as
realistic as possible and sufficiently authentic given the preoccupation of the students. Reflect
on the motivation and interest that the problem situation will generate in the student. We should
also take the practical use of the student’s production or work into consideration. The
production or construction could be in relation to a recipient or an event.
Stage 6: Develop a rating grid. Once the content of the task is spelled out, we must define a
rating grid to evaluate the effectiveness achieved by the student. Since tasks generally require a
production or work on the part of the student that are destined to a recipient, it is important to
include the dimension “communication” in the grid. Communication recognizes the way in
which the student constructs and communicates his production or work while bearing in mind
the characteristics of the recipient. We will therefore find rubrics in the grid that relate to
intellectual operations relative to disciplinary content and communication.
For each selected rubric, the grid lists performances ranging from acceptable to unacceptable.
Performance descriptions specify to students what is required to effectively realize the task and
what is not required. Ratings of 1, 2, 3, and 4 are the norm for grade performance levels. These
symbols make it possible to position the observed performance on the scale. Of course, the
teacher can translate these ratings into grades, by weighting them or not. We believe that by
Page 300 de 383
drawing students’ attention to the description of performances rather than the rating, we reduce
the possibility that students accomplish a task only to get a good grade.
Stage 7: Validate the content of the task. There are two ways of validating the content of the
task. We can put the text aside for a while, and then review it to make sure that the task still
adequately reflects the desired content. The following grid (see figure 7.6).is an example of
learning that we could teach that also corresponds well to the requirements of validation found
in chapter 9. The other way of proceeding would be to resort to the expertise of another person,
presenting them with a grid and asking them to adapt or complete it depending on the need.
Page 301 de 383
Teaching content:
Student schooling level (order and class):
Performance to evaluate:
Type of knowledge involved:
Intellectual operations required by the task:
Scale : 1 = No 2 = A little
3 = Yes
Congruence
Is there congruence:
Between the task and the teaching?
1
2
3
Between the task and the performance to evaluate?
1
2
3
Between the task and the types of knowledge selected?
1
2
3
Between the task and the targeted intellectual operations?
1
2
3
Does the task call on several intellectual dimensions?
1
2
3
Does the task require work or a production from the student?
1
2
3
Does the task interest the students?
1
2
3
Would the students be motivated to succeed in this task?
1
2
3
Does the task generate student-teacher interaction?
1
2
3
Does the time allotted correspond to a real situation?
1
2
3
Does the rating scale provide a good description of every possible
performance?
1
2
3
The various intellectual operations identified?
1
2
3
Does the grid risk encouraging students to work for a grade more
than rise to the challenge?
1
2
3
On the whole, does the task risk penalizing and/or favouring certain
groups of students?
1
2
3
Does the grid adequately take into account
Figure 7.6 Example of a validation grid for an evaluation task in an authentic situation
Page 302 de 383
1. Determine the content of the discipline that will be the object of an evaluation
↓
2. Determine the action on which the performance will be evaluated.
↓
3. Identify the knowledge needed to succeed in accomplishing the task.
↓
4. Choose the necessary intellectual operations.
↓
5. Write up the task.
↓
6. Develop a rating scale.
↓
7. Validate the content of the task.
Figure 7.7 Summary of the development stages of a task
Figure 7.7 allows for a better visualisation of the preceding stages.
The characteristics of a task
When the time comes to choose and/or develop a task, the teacher should take into account the
characteristics listed below. Specialists in the measurement of complex performances are
unanimous in selecting these characteristics. Popham (1995) also agrees that tasks should
contain those presented here. They can be found in the validation of content grid seen in figure
7.6.
The task should be:
—
able to be generalized: The student’s performance of a task can be generalized to similar
tasks.
—
authentic: The task represents a situation that the student can experience in real life,
outside the school environment.
—
multidisciplinary: The task involves many aspects of learning, not just one.
—
connected to teaching: The student’s performance on the task should be a consequence of
teaching received.
Page 303 de 383
Document 6.B
“Evaluating competencies. Yes, but… how?”100
How to evaluate my students’ competencies? How to be sure that the problem situation used to
evaluate their competencies belongs to the same group of situations developed during the learning
process?
Whether they are general, specific, basic or the result of profound reflection, these questions reveal a
widespread concern. The competency approach in education raises profound questions among teachers
relative to the delicate and uncomfortable task of evaluating student competencies, even though this is
inherent to their profession.
After a tortuous journey through the literature on the subject, from Perrenoud to Roegiers, from
Romainville and Paquay to Tardif and many others, after attending certain conferences and training
sessions, a three-day immersion in elaborate training on the subject specifically geared to educational
advisors, and many hours of exchanging ideas among colleagues and teachers, I was able to identify
guidelines (not certainties as there are no such things in education) and clues relative to the assessment of
competencies, in a competency-centered program.
The purpose of this article is to share these with the reader in the hope that they lead to further reflection,
debate, discussions and arrangements; that they be clarified and adjusted; that the ideas be contested and
lead to new questions; as long as they are not used as standards, rules or models.
Can we speak of evaluation?
Can we truly speak of evaluation? You can rest assured that I will not be providing a precise meaning for
the terminology generally in use today, which includes: evaluation, validation, information, verification,
regulation, assessment and rating. However, the term “evaluation” seems to encompass realities that are
far too varied to allow for a coherent discussion on the subject, whether among colleagues or with
students. This is why it seems necessary to clarify the purpose of activity when using the term. For the
time being, associating the word with a qualifier will suffice. Thus, we will speak more precisely of:
—
Formative evaluation is an evaluation that takes place during the learning process for the purpose
of educating via a two-fold regulation. On one hand, a regulation of the student’s learning:
under the teacher’s guidance, student results and the analysis of errors enable the student to become
aware of his acquired knowledge, the learning still to cover, the process itself, resolution strategies,
erroneous procedures and work methods. On the other hand, a regulation of professor’s teaching:
to provide supplementary exercises, re-explain a rule, improve note-taking by students, increase
time for acquisition, move on to next learning sequence …;
—
Summative evaluation refers to any evaluation taking place at the end of a learning session. The
student’s performance on this evaluation is then added to the scores of previous tests by the
professor, to determine if the student has achieved a passing grade.
The student’s overall results on summative evaluations will create the database from which the teacher
will decide the final grade for the course. The certification at the end of the year or cycle is the
responsibility of the professorial body that meets regularly for this purpose.
100
FUNDP – Namur. [http://www.det.fundp.ac.be/~mho/evaluation.htm].
Page 304 de 383
From this point on, we will take this initial guideline into account by identifying the nature of evaluations
when referring to them.
Temporal model of formative and summative evaluations
Every component of a competency after some structuring can become the object of an evaluation. The
distribution of declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge is not fortuitous, it seems, and working
these different dimensions explicitly in class favours the transfer of learning (Tardif, 1999) and,
consequently, competency development.
I stress the fact that it seems essential that the student distinguish conceptually the difference between the
formative evaluation, done during the learning process, and the summative evaluation, done at the end of
the learning process. Paradoxically as we will see later on, in reality we have to work with compromises.
To do so, let us begin by considering two very distinct phases.
During training, the evaluation contributes to student development; it is a learning tool and an integral
part of the process. Learning takes place, to a certain extent, when assisted by evaluations that use a
variety of methods:
—
The initial formative evaluation (if administered) is used essentially to provide information for the
teacher on the student’s initial concepts and current level of skills, and to collect information on
prior acquisitions before undertaking the new learning sequence;
—
The interactive formative evaluations correspond to frequent teacher/student interactions and
student/student interactions. These events constitute informal evaluations, probably the most
enriching and constructive ones in the learning process;
—
The selective formative evaluations make it possible to test the acquisition of a particular
knowledge or skill required to implement the competency or, more likely, the competencies
targeted by the learning sequence (see box).
Page 305 de 383
For example, let us consider the competency of written expression in a Dutch language course: Write a
letter to your best friend describing your last summer holiday. To accomplish this task, the student must
mobilize knowledge, skills and personal conduct that can be described as follows: (the list is not
exhaustive)
Declarative knowledge:
—
specific vocabulary used in letter writing
—
vocabulary associated with the beach, the mountain, pastimes, summer job
Procedural knowledge:
—
procedures for writing a letter
—
procedures for writing verbs in the past tense
Conditional knowledge:
—
when to use specific verb tenses
—
skills: writing verbs in the past tense
Attitudes:
—
o
interested in sharing experiences
o
interested in the person to whom we are writing
The formative evaluations for entire learning sequences provide students with the opportunity to
exercise their competencies in real problem situations. They can be used as a sort of dress rehearsal
for the general certification evaluation, a “practice” evaluation.
During all of these evaluations, student errors become advantages that we can put to good use (for
example: “Thank you Peter and Gloria. Thanks to you, I got the chance to clarify an important element
…” “During the learning process, an error is not considered a mistake but a normal provisional state on
which we can elaborate future assimilations” (Pantanella, 1992). Errors further progress. Therefore, oral
and written tests, homework, preparation and reports are seen as real learning tools and marking these
creates the opportunity to elicit metacognition during which students and teachers discuss errors,
approaches, mechanisms, processes and strategies used.
To illustrate the link between error management and metacognition, let us review a few simple examples
taken from my family and professional experience. In my son’s grade 2 class, the teacher asked the
following classic geography question: “Name five countries on the 60th parallel south”. Several students
answered incorrectly including my son. When he got home after school, he asked me to help him find the
correct answer.
Not knowing exactly how to help him, I asked him how correction had been done in class, expecting to be
able to point out his lack of attention. However, he explained during the “group correction, the teacher
asked Anthony, who is a ‘good’ student, to name the five countries (answer the question). My son added
that he had wanted to write the answer down but was told by the teacher instead to redo the exercise at
home.” To redo the exercise is precisely what we were trying to do, but unable to. This method of
correction did not teach my son, Laurent, how to answer the question. Whereas highlighting the steps
used to find the answer by asking students (who answered incorrectly and correctly) how they completed
the exercise (what reference maps did they use, how did they identify the 60th parallel south, etc.) would
have undoubtedly allowed students to identify their errors (for example, confusing north and south, or
Page 306 de 383
meridian and parallel, not knowing what a parallel is, not choosing the appropriate map in the Atlas …)
and progress could have been achieved.
In grade 3 at elementary school, my daughter is learning written calculations. One day, she comes home
with a question that requires ten calculations. Three results are crossed out and her score of 7/10 is
qualified by the following comment: “In grade 3 at elementary school, a girl has to work hard. Sylvie,
you can do better!” Trying to help my daughter by using my own pedagogical principles, I asked her what
process she had used to reach a total of 517 when adding 436 and 171.”
Initially, she replied: “I am certainly not going to tell you, since it was incorrect!” As with most students,
she was resistant to discussing her behaviour. She was implying that: “Since 517 is not the correct
answer, there is no need to pay any further attention to it, just give me the correct answer and let’s forget
about it”. However, convinced of the usefulness of my question, I persisted and explained that it was
important for me to understand her reasoning, adding that she scored 7 out of 10 correctly, so she should
be able to explain how she solved the incorrect ones. My argument worked. She began to describe the
steps she followed: 6 + 1 = 7; 3 + 7 = 10, I wrote down 1 and carried over the zero (instead of: I wrote
down 0 and carried over the 1). In that simple statement, we quickly found her error in calculation. In
both cases, the error resulted from carrying over 10. Once identified, this procedural error was easily
explained and we avoided having to carry out the two initial possibilities: one, to re-explain the entire
procedure for addition or two, scold the child and ask that she be more attentive next time. Both
possibilities would have been useless and even quite discouraging for Sylvie.
Here is another quite incredible actual example: Naima, a 4th year science student got all the answers in a
true/false biology test wrong (0/14!). During the correction, I was curious as to how she selected her
answers and so I asked her: “What process did you use to answer question 1?” Imagine my surprise when
her answer made me realize that all her errors were caused by her weakness in orthography. She was
probably dyslexic. For Naima, “True” looked like “Frue”and “False” looked like “Talse”. So naturally,
since the answers required only a T or F, she had inverted these letters and in fact, had scored 14/14, a
perfect score! This simple question made it possible for Naima to receive her rightful score on her biology
test, and also to rectify (probably for life) a learning difficulty.
Finally, I would like offer an example of a collective moment in metacognition. During a three-hour
chemistry class, 5th year, while correcting an oral formative evaluation on the assessment of reactions (for
the non-initiated reader, this has to do with a problem solving competency proper to chemists, that
involves up to seven resolution stages), I decided to review the types of errors committed by my 22
students. We moved from one resolution stage to the other, for a single problem, the one that produced
the greatest number of errors and was the most enriching to analyze. The process went something like
this: Who also made an error at this stage? What happened to you Magali? What about you, John? Fatima,
how did you reach this result? Together, we identified resolution strategies and analyzed errors. I wrote
the resolutions down on the blackboard as the discussion progressed. I also suggested that the students
take notes and highlight the areas where they had experienced difficulties. During the subsequent
summative evaluation, my students performed admirably well. I asked them to identify the components
they felt had contributed to the successful outcome. Several students listed the notes taken during the
formative evaluation. Obviously, this type of correction takes a considerable investment of time, but in all
cases mentioned above, the impact both on results and student motivation has been extraordinary and
encouraged me to pursue this activity.
In these four examples, we can see that analyzing how a student answers questions and paying attention to
the processes he uses and not just the resulting product (the almighty correct answer) allows a teacher to
qualify his opinion on the student. And instead of comments like: “He did not study the entire subject
matter”, “There is something she did not understand”, “he is not very quick”, a teacher can view
students in a more image-enhancing perspective which in turn, furthers their progress.
Page 307 de 383
To complete the formative evaluation picture, let us include one more principle found in all the books on
the subject yet still very far from reaching consensus: student errors should not be penalized or
counted. Could this be an out-and-out invention by researchers true only in the “best of pedagogical
worlds?” A world where every student conscientiously does his homework and takes pleasure in
memorizing lessons in order to master competencies … and not just to get a good grade! We are tempted
to believe this when we examine this facet of the formative evaluation without considering subtle
differentiation or complexity. In fact, not penalizing or counting an error does not mean that grades are
not assigned. On the contrary, it is because of errors that the student is able to identify his level of
success; errors also contribute very definitely to the student’s extrinsic motivation (cf infra). However,
this principle implies that during the learning process, the student has the “right to be wrong”. Since a
quick calculation is more effective than a lengthy speech, let us take the following example. During the
training, Amaury receives 1/10 for his work on a graph (he did not understand the concept of graduated
scale, forgot how to calculate the sizes on the x- and y-axis and made an error in the conversion of units.
During the correction, Amaury analyzes his errors, does supplementary exercises and sets up a memory
jogger for himself. On the next oral test, he scores 8/10. In summary, does Amaury deserve an average of
4.5 (for both tests) or 8/10? Using competency-centered logic, our goal is to determine if the student has
acquired the competency, is it not?
Whatever methods the teacher uses to inject a spirit, culture or philosophy of formative evaluation into his
classroom, the resulting non-judgmental atmosphere of trust that results, the “right to be wrong” that
prevails and the analysis of errors provide students with a secure learning environment and metacognitive
opportunities that facilitate learning.
To adopt this work ethic is to say goodbye to a certain power and authority: “Be quiet, study, do your
homework … or else… watch out for your grades”. It also implies a change in student mentality that has
been conditioned by the system. Both will require time. We will return to this issue later.
At the end of training, the summative evaluation resembles the final formative evaluation given after each
stage of learning. Student performance on this test is recorded and allows the teacher to evaluate if the
student has succeeded or failed during the course of the year, and at year-end. When all students succeed
the formative evaluation for a given stage, it can be considered a summative evaluation (students would
add: “grades do count”). To my mind, the fact that students have acquired new learning seems more
important than the validation of their competencies.
In addition, the summative evaluation can prove to have formative value, even if this is not the purpose of
the test.
Summative evaluation and learning: two inseparable entities
In discussing summative evaluations of competencies, we must also discuss learning that develops the
competencies: both concepts are inseparable! From an ethical point of view, how could we conceive of a
teacher evaluating competencies in a summative manner without having implemented a methodology
centered on competency development? It seems obvious and even trivial and yet ….
Didn’t the introduction of transversal competencies in school during the first level of reform (a few years
ago) manifest itself concretely in most schools by a change in report cards to include summative
evaluations of a few carefully selected transversal competencies (to be calm in class, respect others,
reasoning skills, spelling skills, …). In most of these cases, these transversal competencies were not
training objectives and did not entail any modification in teaching practices.
“This notion of transversal competency has gained importance in the report card, but that’s all. There
has been nothing to support it.”
My intention in this paragraph is to stress the importance of learning. It seems to me that if the formative
evaluation is an intrinsic part of a competency-based program and deserves our full support, then
Page 308 de 383
summative evaluations could adapt to current systems in the short term. Even though many teachers and
pedagogues may be justified in denouncing the added academic logistics this implies, such as the
frequency of report cards, the time needed for exams, the report card format (Perrenoud, 1999; Tardif,
1999), I do believe that designing new report cards in haste, means incurring a replay of difficulties seen
during the first stage of reform which resulted in mass confusion among teachers.
“I taught second grade for a short period of time and I remember being asked one day, to complete these
transversal competencies for the first time…well we ended up playing a game of “vogelpik”. Over a
period of two or three hours we darted back and forth between: was this good, was that good, was it
very good? We were asked to complete some sheets but not all. So we did that and then we did nothing.
We worked without direction for several hours during the staff meeting and it served no purpose at all.
How can we expect to motivate our colleagues when the whole exercise led to nothing?”
On the other hand, it should be possible to initiate negotiations with the school establishment and
management team, to adapt the structure to their specific needs. The three previous examples show how
local specifications can make it possible to work within existing structures while remaining consistent
with students.
The day before report cards were due, I often found myself without a single summative evaluation result.
So, to provide the family with information on the work of their children and avoid last-minute evaluations
that would damage my credibility in the eyes of my students and the spirit of formative evaluation I
wished to instil, I made the following agreement with my students, their parents, management and my
colleagues: I would enter all results achieved during each period (in the report card) and circle only those
that I would take into account at the end of the year for the purpose of evaluating the student’s success.
Teachers related two other examples to me during a training course. One found himself facing the same
difficulty just before the Christmas session (non completion of a learning sequence) and asked
management to postpone the exam for the classes involved. A minor scheduling change made it possible
for this teacher to administer the test one month later. Another teacher was not satisfied with the current
report card format so he attached a logbook describing individual student learning progress for his course.
How to assess competencies in a summative manner.
The question is too broad and touches on at least five successive dimensions. As a teacher:
On one hand, what evaluation tool should I design to assess student competencies?
On the other hand, how do I
—
rate the completed production? and
—
establish a threshold for success? then
—
interpret the overall “summative evaluations” at year’s end to decide if a student passes or fails the
course? and finally,
—
communicate test results to the student, their parents and the teaching personnel?
What tool to use to assess competencies in a summative manner?
Our analysis of some definitions of competency lets us identify certain key elements. On one hand, the
implementation of one or several competencies takes place through action, in the accomplishment of a
task and the resolution of a problem. One the other, the problem or situation requires the mobilization of
various resources: knowledge, skills and attitudes.
Consequently, one means of collecting information on student competencies is to have them perform a
complex and global task. Others refer to the tasks as complex and integrated (Delory, 2000). All the
authors agree on this point. Yet, it is this very fact that is problematic. The task must not be identical to
those introduced in the learning stages, nor should it be fundamentally different. If the task is identical or
Page 309 de 383
too similar, the student would simply reproduce behaviour (and not demonstrate a competency). If the
task is too dissimilar, the student may have to mobilize knowledge and skills not covered during the
training.
This issue gives rise to a sensitive question concerning the difficulty for teachers to select a complex task
from the same family of tasks covered in the learning phase. We find ourselves at the heart of the transfer
problem: “A complex and demanding phenomenon on the cognitive level that is difficult to circumscribe
using tools that are designed to reduce this complexity to a few variables or factors.” (Tardif, 1999).
We can illustrate this complexity using a specific competency in a mathematics course: “To transform a
problem into an equation of the 1st degree in order to find a solution.” To evaluate this competency, the
mathematics professor could choose a problem such as the following:
“The Orval brasserie employees currently work 40 hours a week and produce 800,000 bottles. They
would like to reduce the workweek to 36 hours, whereas the Abbey monks would like to increase the
production to 320,760 litres of beer per week. For both goals to be met, hourly production would have to
be increased. Calculate the number of 33-cl bottles of beer that would have to be produced additionally
per hour.”
This deals with a global and complex situation. For the student to grasp the meaning, he must mobilize
specific knowledge (1 litre = 100 cl), mobilize skills (division, conversion of litres to centilitres, how to
calculate the number of bottles of beer given the total volume of beer and the bottle capacity, establish an
equation of the 1st degree, enter the data and variables), cognitive operations relating to the problem
(understanding the problem, visualizing it, translating, …) and attitudes ((keep working at solving the
problem even while feeling it will not be resolved, concentrate, take a step back from the problem, avoid
emotional involvement,…).
It is probable that even if students performed many exercises of this type during the learning phase, in a
summative evaluation, a student like Julian who is unfamiliar with media jargon may get hung up on
certain terms (go to a 36-hour week); a student like Valentine could be stumped by the expression “hourly
production”; and Morgan may be able to solve the problem successfully without having to transform the
problem into equation format
As it turns out, this problem can be easily solved (in a manner of speaking) with the following equation
(20 000 + x) · 36 = 972 000. Some students can find the answer without resorting to an equation, which is
the targeted competency for this situation. In addition, the problem calls on many other transversal
competencies, such as analyzing and understanding the message.
A teacher who comes up against these situations will notice that Julian and Valentine failed to resolve the
problem, whereas Morgan succeeded. Might he then conclude that Julian and Valentine cannot translate
the problem into an equation, while Morgan can? Certainly not! The two who did not succeed were
hindered by a lack of comprehension of the problem and were not able to demonstrate the competency
whereas Morgan did succeed but he did not demonstrate the desired competency either.
As we can see, the question of choosing complex and global tasks for the targeted competencies is
particularly sensitive, difficult and demanding. There is a latent risk of discrepancies between the
teacher’s intention when developing the task and the understanding of the student who has to treat the
information. It seems possible to reduce this grey area relative to transfer by taking certain precautions:
understanding the student’s history, ensuring that each student is capable of decoding the data relative to
the problem and keeping the tricky pitfalls exclusively for the formative evaluations. To do away with
this grey area completely is, of course, Utopian.
The inherent difficulties of this example should cause us to seriously question our ability to connect a task
to an exact description of a competency that is effectively demonstrated and, we should therefore arm
Page 310 de 383
ourselves with a good measure of caution, humility and modesty when administering summative
evaluations.
It would no doubt prove extremely interesting during a formative evaluation, to explore the intellectual
processes or difficulties of Julian, Valentine and Morgan possess. It would no doubt provide a real
opportunity to enrich our sum of learning in various fields.
How to rate student productions
Relative to criteria
To illustrate the importance of using criteria, let us leave the school environment for a moment.
To appreciate the quality of wine, an unenlightened wine-lover will rely on his personal taste (I like it or I
don’t). The educated wine-taster uses an oenological set of criteria such as colour, intensity and
transparency, aroma, level of alcohol, the use of tannin, the degree of acidity, the subtle and aromatic
aftertaste, or he uses more global criteria such as balance.
In both cases, the evaluator uses criteria to render a judgment. The wine-lover unconsciously uses vague
criteria, contrary to the more scientific wine taster who refers to a well-defined criteria grid. In both cases,
“rating” and “judgment” are connected to criteria. We cannot evaluate without using criteria!
Moreover, the more the reference criteria are detailed and precise, the more the evaluation appears refined
and coherent. Additionally, when two different evaluators define a list of criteria together, they increase
their odds of understanding each other and finding a common ground of agreement.
Discuss the criteria and ensure they are understood
The same applies to the summative evaluation of a competency within the school environment. When
students look at their marked tests and express a lack of understanding and a feeling of injustice – which
greatly disturbs and hinders a pedagogical relationship – is it not due to lack of clear and precise
knowledge of the evaluation criteria? Comments like: “it’s not fair”, “his rating is too tough”, and
“Three points off for that, it’s disgusting!” support this fact.
However, even transparency of criteria has its limitations. The famous and ancestral experiments in
docimology reveal a number of adverse effects (stereotyping, ranking and positioning subsequent to
marking, etc.) that leave no teacher exempt from subjectivity during evaluations. It seems plausible that
promoting self-evaluation, co-evaluation and peer evaluation practices in the classroom during training
would minimize these negative effects.
As for summative evaluations, the mere awareness of subjectivity that haunts every evaluator should
guarantee modesty and humility. I have attended staff meetings where students were given failure grades
even though they were only lacking a few points! Is this right, especially, if the criteria are not clear?
Develop criteria during the learning phase
Let us go back again to the above example. A teacher who wants his students to develop this “valuable”
wine-tasting competency will slowly introduce criteria connected to the three senses (sight, smell and
taste) in the sampling sessions, i.e. the learning sequences.
A true formative effort implies we develop the criteria grid for a given competency with the collaboration
of the class, clarify our viewpoint and take into account those of the students, i.e. we negotiate. To have
students participate in the definition of the evaluation criteria places them at the heart of the task, the
process involved, the realization stages and the quality of the production. It will no doubt influence their
performances and contribute to the advancement of their understanding of the role of the teacher, learning
and the task to be completed. In my opinion, this is an essential stage in the learning process. In order to
make this a tangible reality, a few examples of competencies with matching criteria and corresponding
indicators are provided in Annex 2.
Page 311 de 383
How to establish the threshold of success.
Some authors use the terms “level of requirement”, “level of mastery”, etc. I much prefer the term
“threshold of success” which refers directly to performance. The expression “level of mastery” refers
more to a targeted competency than a task to accomplish. And in fact, what is measured is the
performance, which in turn will be used by the teacher to infer mastery of the competency (cf. infra).
Using a set of criteria, how can we determine concretely if the student has succeeded or failed in
accomplishing the required task? The goal of this section is not to provide a neatly packaged procedure.
There are as many ways of doing this as there are productions to evaluate. The point is to remain open to
all avenues. This way, with common sense, logic and intuition, we can weight each criterion and
establish a reasonable success threshold, keeping in mind the evolutionary nature of competencies:
—
identify the eventual indispensable criteria (if they are not met, the work is a failure);
—
identify the fundamental criteria, the minimal criteria and those relative to proficiency
(improvement);
—
weight each criteria based on its characteristics;
—
determine the level of requirement of each indispensable criterion, taking into account the
evolutionary nature of competencies (the competency of students cannot be compared with that of
experts).
Isn’t this how teachers normally proceed when marking assignments, whether dealing with competencies
or not?
During the learning phase, all these decisions can be discussed in class (for example within the scope of
self-evaluation), or at least clarified in depth so there is transparency with students.
How to manage a series of “summative evaluations” and determine if a student has passed or failed
the course.
Again, the problem is not new or specific to the assessment of competencies! Final success in a course
has always depended on the total of many “tests”. The onus is on the teacher to evaluate the overall
results in order to decide on the student’s success or failure at the end of the year. This task is very
difficult for many professors. After having coached, guided, trained, stimulated and encouraged their
students throughout the perilous learning journey, they now find themselves forced to play a radically
different role, that of judge.
There is no universal recipe or procedure for this, since each situation is different and unique. To want to
answer this question at all costs has been described by B. de Hennin (1987) as an unachievable ideal
given there is no one solution. In fact, many solutions are possible although none may be perfect. Thus,
to seek a panacea merely aggravates the problem. In order to avoid reaching this stage, everyone is
encouraged to develop their own solution with thoroughness and transparency. This will minimize the
arbitrary nature of decisions with the understanding that no one solution will be completely satisfactory.
So as not to leave the reader without a clue as to the solution, here are a few suggestions to assist in
decision-making, especially when there is risk of failure.
—
focus on what is essential: does the fact that the student has not yet developed certain competencies
in a satisfactory manner constitute a real handicap for his success next year or in the next stage?
—
discuss: co-evaluation with the student on his journey so far, a private conversation can help the
teacher fine-tune his knowledge of the student.
—
seek information from colleagues, broaden your knowledge: all additional information on the
student and his progress will facilitate decision-making.
Page 312 de 383
Self-criticism
If I were to play the devil’s advocate, I could say that the above is not very innovative as concerns
pedagogical matters. Effectively, new tools such as the portfolio, the logbook, the progressive file and
more revolutionary methods such as the authentic evaluations and the integration of evaluations into the
daily class work are not even mentioned. These approaches seem both pertinent and particularly well
adapted to a competency-based pedagogy and their use with students fits in perfectly with formative
evaluations, possibly with summative evaluations as well. However, within the scope of this article, I
chose to select a more familiar path, closer to current practices in the field. A statement by P. Watzlawick
(1975) guided my decision: “The beginning of any change requires a particular intervention and
paradoxically, the best intervention will be the one that adheres to the following advice: “Go easy!’”
Sections 2), 3) and 4) of this text could be classified as being extremely technical. As stated quite
accurately by J. André (1998), we should not only “place cognitive learners in problem situations that
force them to face insurmountable obstacles and evaluate them with the help of criteria-based grids!” We
should also equip ourselves with tools, without going overboard in our use of pedagogical hardware. Let
us not forget that behind every great student is a sensible and emotional person, and it is highly
recommended to take a person’s uniqueness into consideration during an evaluation.
Finally, the idea of developing and discussing criteria and thresholds of success with students seems to go
against one major objective of the reform, which is to standardize requirements so that all students are
“treated” in equivalent fashion. However, discussing criteria and levels of requirements with colleagues
and developing evaluation strategies with other professors within a discipline or in a trans-disciplinary
fashion for the purpose of harmonizing practices and diminishing the workload, should reduce the
unacceptable gaps between schools. We will probably not see the benefits of this collaboration for several
years to come.
A few more bulk questions.
During an exchange session with colleagues, several other questions were raised: Are there competencies
exercised during the learning process that should not be evaluated in summative manner but simply
observed and evaluated in formative fashion? Is there a way to certify students who succeed in acquiring
systematic knowledge and skills in an isolated manner, yet are unable to mobilize these acquired
resources to solve a problem or accomplish a task?
How do we define evaluation criteria, based on what method?
How do we determine the number of criteria required for a competency to meet “exhaustiveness” and
“feasibility” requirements at marking time?
—
If the summative evaluation must deal with at least three performances per criteria, how do we
manage training, multiple formative evaluations and at least three evaluations for each criterion per
course, during one class period a week?
—
What is the role of external tests when evaluating competencies?
—
The teacher may not have summative evaluation results for report cards due to the timeframe
needed for the learning sequences. Under these circumstances, how do we react in order to remain
consistent with our students, have the parents be patient as regards results and still respect the
conventions of the establishment?
As we can see, the methodology of competency assessment is far from simple. As mentioned by P.
Meirieu (1991), when faced with a difficult task, an individual who tries to do it all sometimes resigns
himself to doing nothing. I would add that given the magnitude of the work and the number of questions
to work on, anyone who would limit himself to work done in class would become quite discouraged very
quickly. Would this not be a good time therefore to undertake micro-adaptations, to experiment in class,
to collaborate with colleagues, to exchange and share evaluation practices? Briefly stated, to adopt a crePage 313 de 383
actor stance (a combination of creator and actor) coined by J. Donnay (1999). If the ongoing reform is at
the origin of such initiatives, then long live the reform!”
Page 314 de 383
Chapter 7
If I had to do a comprehensive assessment...101
Transparency
—
Initially I would like to know what a comprehensive assessment is. What is its role? Is it used to
validate my ability to synthesize, to give me the opportunity to do a synthesis or other?
—
I would like to know what will be evaluated, the evaluation methods used and the relative
importance of the various components, from the very start of the program.
—
I would like to know the test methods used, the consequences for failure in a course section, and
conditions for rewriting an exam.
—
I would like to know in advance what will be evaluated and what is at stake.
—
I would like to know from the start – the beginning of the program – what the objects of the test are
and I would like to be reminded of them during the course of the program.
Author’s note:
The statements shown here are the spontaneous
thoughts of teachers on comprehensive program
assessment. They were collected by Cécile D’Amour
during a series of ten improvement activities.
Participants were given a few minutes to identify the
characteristics of a comprehensive assessment that
would validate their learning at the end of the program.
Connection to learning objectives and training
—
The test at the end of a program should not be a complete surprise. The evaluation of learning done
during the course should have prevented me from making it to the final evaluation without being
sufficiently prepared. Weaknesses in my learning should have been identified and communicated to
me.
—
The test should be a logical continuation of the training. It should be relevant to the training both in
terms of content and type of tasks.
—
There should be a connection, a common thread between the courses, the evaluations within the
course and the comprehensive program assessment, so that progressive integration can take place.
—
The whole of the program should be taken into consideration; the test should reflect the same
proportion of disciplines as found in the program.
—
From the start of the program, I should be given opportunities to participate in activities that assist
in the integration of learning.
Objects of the evaluation
—
It should be a general test that encompasses the whole and not just a “part” of learning; it should
validate the mastery of essential learning.
—
It should not only test knowledge.
101
Translated from Pédagogie collégiale, vol. 10, no 1, October 1996.
Page 315 de 383
—
I would like it to be an opportunity for me to demonstrate my autonomy and my thoroughness,
particularly as this autonomy applies to learning. At the end of a pre-university program for
example, I should know how to acquire new learning on my own.
—
The test should cover multidimensional objects and call into play several competencies.
—
I would like the evaluation to deal with how I judge what I am doing, to evaluate my critical sense
of judgment.
Evaluation methods
—
We could use case studies, actual situations.
—
The test should contain several sections to respect the scope and diversity of what is being
evaluated. These sections could be classified as to the nature of the tasks and the time when they
are “administered”. Even for pre-university levels, the tasks in a test must connect to real life
situations.
—
I would like the test to be in a format other than a written exam with time limitations.
—
Several of my productions or processes should be taken into account, and observations should be
made from several perspectives.
—
I would like the tasks and conditions in which the test will be carried out to be authentic relative to
the situations I will encounter in my professional practice. For example, the use of teamwork.
An interesting and stimulating challenge
—
The first thing I would like is that we stop calling it a “test”.
—
I would like to see the test presented as a challenge rather than an obligation; an activity that is both
interesting and enriching.
—
I would like an “authentic” evaluation, not a “phoney” one; I would hope that professors have faith
in the evaluations (meaningful within the program and not just in keeping with ministerial
demands).
—
I would make room for personal expression.
The level of difficulty and requirements
—
The level of difficulty for a test should be comparable to all other tests leading to similar
certification.
—
Professors who teach the program should be able to “pass” the test themselves; the student should
not be asked to do something that the teacher cannot do.
—
The requirements should be appropriate; success should be linked to minimum requirements in
order to enter the labour market.
The timeframe for a comprehensive program assessment
—
I would like the test to be given at the end of the program because until that moment, I am still
learning. However, the test could be spread over a certain period of time (several days, one or two
weeks).
—
I would like the test to be given at the end of the program, without delay.
—
It should not encroach on my vacation time.
Page 316 de 383
Several of these reflections remain current. It would be interesting to validate them after several years of
use within the collegial network in the implementation of the comprehensive program assessment.
To begin this chapter, we will review certain basic concepts and procedures along with a few examples of
tools currently in use. Our interest in discussing this topic here has a lot to do with the qualitative
analysis of comprehensive program assessments. This is why we are including three grids used to validate
evaluation of learning practices within the program, that are to be used as pedagogical material in specific
learning activities.
Page 317 de 383
Chapter Synopsis:
Activity 7:
To evaluate a comprehensive program assessment
Tools:
Tool 7.A:
A definition of the comprehensive program assessment
Tool 7.B:
Exit profile
The grid of shared teaching responsibilities
Tool 7.C:
A good comprehensive program assessment:
Conditions
Student preparation during the program
Choosing the type of evaluation test
Example of a comprehensive program assessment
Tool 7.D:
Three grids for the evaluation or self-evaluation of a
comprehensive program assessment
Document:
Document 7.A:
The evaluation of learning at collegial level: from course to
program
Complementary document 5: “The evaluation of learning at collegial level: from course to
program”
Page 318 de 383
Activity 7
Evaluating a comprehensive program assessment
Heading
Evaluate a comprehensive program assessment
Objectives
Redefine the comprehensive program assessment.
Validate the choice of tools used.
Evaluate a comprehensive assessment.
Reflect on current evaluation practices within the program framework.
Description
Unfolding
Moderator’s role
The implementation of a comprehensive program assessment is a complex
activity from a program perspective. It is an opportunity to turn a critical eye
on our evaluation by analyzing the components of the examination or test:
—
Data relative to the program: essential learning as per the exit profile and
the grid of shared teaching responsibilities.
—
Data relative to the evaluation test:
o
respect for the nature of a comprehensive assessment,
o
coherence between evaluation and training,
o
the criteria-based evaluation,
o
accuracy of the evaluation judgment and validity of the evaluation;
relevance and thoroughness of the judgment development process,
o
stability of the evaluation judgment and results from one student to
the next and from one version to another,
o
requirements concerning the student’s relationship to the
comprehensive assessment,
o
administrative implementation methods.
A.
Prerequisite: ask participants to provide a comprehensive assessment of
their program.
B.
Pooling and discussions on the definition of a comprehensive program
assessment. Has the perception of this program requirement evolved
since its implementation? (Tool 7.A).
C.
In small work teams, evaluate the nature, relevance and thoroughness of
tools used to collect data relative to the program: the exit profile and the
grid of shared teaching responsibilities (Tool 7. B).
D.
Choose a comprehensive program assessment provided by a participant.
Only one comprehensive assessment per work team. Working in teams
of 4 to 6 people, proceed to the evaluation of this assessment using the
three grids provided (Tool 7.D).
E.
Finish by reflecting and analyzing actual practices used in programs
where participants teach. Do an analysis of difficulties encountered and
enjoyable activities shared.
To fully understand the content of the three evaluation grids.
Page 319 de 383
To create a climate favourable to reflection.
To encourage questioning.
To support interaction between participants.
At the end of the meeting, to proceed to a common validation of personal
evaluation practices.
To openly discuss and analyze evaluation practices.
To support interaction between participants.
To validate their frame of reference.
Pedagogical
material
Tool 7.A:
A definition of the comprehensive program assessment
Tool 7.B:
Exit profile
Tool 7.C:
A good comprehensive program assessment:
Conditions
Student preparation throughout the program
Choosing the type of test
Tool 7.D:
Support
documentation
Three grids for the evaluation or self-evaluation of a
comprehensive program assessment
Review the documents in chapter 6, data remains valid in the comprehensive
program assessment.
Pay particular attention to documents dealing with authentic evaluations.
Complementary
document
“The evaluation of learning at collegial level: from course
to program”
Approximate
duration
Minimum: 3 hours
Page 320 de 383
Tool 7.A
Definition of a comprehensive program assessment 102
A comprehensive program assessment (CPA) is a summative evaluation activity that takes place at the
end of a program, whose role is to certify the level of development of final competencies resulting from
student integration of essential learning acquired during the study program.
For a clearer picture, let us review the components. The comprehensive program assessment is:
— an evaluation activity
To develop a CPA is to select and build a tool; it is also to
create an evaluation activity and all that it entails: plan and
carry out the tasks required for the development of the test,
implement methods for collecting data and preparing
candidates, identify methods for recourse and rewriting exams,
select, train and provide evaluators with a framework,
implement a review process of the test, its adjustment and the
development of subsequent tests, etc.
— a summative evaluation whose
role is to certify
It is a component of the validation of study that attests to the
achievement of student learning relative to the established
program goal.
A criteria-based evaluation is necessary to certify the result of
learning activities versus the targeted goal rather than the
results of other students. This presupposes that minimum
requirements have been established and communicated to the
students from the start.
— at program end
If the CPA validates results of acquired learning in the program,
it is only fair and logical that it take place at the end of the
training and that the evaluation judgment on the student be left
until the very end, i.e. when the student has had an opportunity
to acquire all essential learning.
— the level of development
It is beneficial for both for the student, the instructor and others
in the specific field (labour market or university) that the CPA
establish the level of competency development resulting from
integrated learning acquired in the program and not merely
provide a “pass or fail” observation.
102
Translated from Cécile D’Amour, L’évaluation des apprentissages au collégial : du cours au programme, Fascicule III-IV,
2e volet. Avenues quant au comment faire. Comment faire l’évaluation des apprentissages?, Comment faire l’animation
pédagogique sur ce thème?, Performa collégial, Doc. E.4.3, January 1997.
Page 321 de 383
— of final competencies
Final competencies in a program integrate all the competencies
targeted by the program and covered during the course. They
are complex in nature.
It is due to the learning acquired (from various types of
knowledge) and its integration that the student has the capacity
to act in the many situations he will encounter in his training, in
the labour market or at university.
— resulting from the integration
The word integration covers a broad range, including the
integration of acquisitions in a specific system for the student:
retention, comparison, organization, personal acquisition i.e.,
making it his own, awareness of his acquired knowledge, the
extent and limitations of this knowledge, awareness of his
weaknesses, development of concepts and personal values
linked to future fields of intervention; and what belongs to the
integration of acquired learning into practice (speech or
action). It is not a question of re-evaluating learning in relation
to each course but rather its integration.
— by the student
This implies that care must be taken to ensure the judgment
represents the result of individual student learning even if some
tasks within the framework of the test may have been achieved
through team effort.
In addition, it is expected that the training and teaching
objectives achieved be identical for all students, with each
student achieving his own level of integration. When dealing
with competencies that all students in the program should have
developed, the CPA must leave room for the personal character
of the training results for each student.
— of essential learning acquired
during the program
A study program is made up of two components, specific and
general training; mastery of competencies and integration
objectives should attest to the integration of learning achieved
for both aspects of the program.
Page 322 de 383
Tool 7.B
The exit profile
What the CPA evaluates is the result of the integration of learning. It is not a question
of evaluating what has already been evaluated in previous courses or of evaluating
everything that was covered in the program. In order to identify objects of evaluation
that are significant for the CPA, we must first identify essential learning.
Essential learning
Essential learning consists in a sufficient amount of fundamental learning to allow official certification at
end of program. Essential learning is complex and multidimensional learning that has been constructed
during the training through the on-going integration of learning achieved in many courses. Essential
learning refers to global expectations at end of training and to the most fundamental knowledge as well as
that which determines effective behaviour in the labour market or at university.
The exit profile includes the essential learning for a program
The exit profile must correspond to the level of competency that we expect to see in an entry-level
technician in the labour market or in a graduate who undertakes higher education. This level of
competency becomes the object to which the CPA refers.
The regrouping of this learning into separate dimensions
From a perspective of basic education we can define essential learning and classify it according to
various dimensions. Basic training should be centered on five parameters:
—
an exit profile based on essential learning and not essential subject matters;
—
the essential learning can be generic and trans-disciplinary;
—
the essential learning is dependent on the specific original contribution of each discipline as to its
fundamental and essential concepts, methods, approaches and historical benchmarks;
—
this learning must facilitate the continuous development of the person; and finally,
—
this learning must favour the dynamic social integration of the person.
Basic training is expressed along two axes:
—
a trans-disciplinary field (axis 1): training goals, attitudes, work methods, cognitive skills, oral and
written communication skills;
—
a disciplinary field (axis 2): concepts and approaches proper to various program disciplines.
What is an exit profile?
An exit profile includes the educational objectives that are defined for a given study program within a
given training program.
Types of educational objectives:
—
educational goals in general training
—
educational goals in specific training
—
general program objectives
—
general educational goals in technical training
Page 323 de 383
—
objectives and standards determined by the ministère
—
basic training
—
professional socioaffective attitudes or capacities
—
training elements of an establishment’s educational project
—
institutional orientations relative to basic training
Why an exit profile?
The exit profile is a training plan that primarily answers the question: what type of person do we want to
train? An exit profile allows us:
—
to explicitly define training objectives for a given study program;
—
to establish links between the different courses within a discipline and different disciplines within
the same program;
—
to focus on what is essential to the training objectives; to facilitate the integration of learning;
—
to identify the contribution of each course to the graduate profile;
—
to define explicitly what will be taught and to share responsibilities for instruction (in which
courses will the statements relative to the exit profile be taught?).
An exit profile includes:
—
—
a trans-disciplinary field (axis 1 of basic training) :
o
work methods (ex.: to take notes, work in teams, manage time)
o
study methods (ex.: schematization, summaries)
o
cognitive skills (ex.: to analyze, synthesize, deduce, interpret) and intellectual processes
(problem solving, decision-making)
o
oral and written communication skills
a disciplinary field (axis 2 of basic training) :
o
essential knowledge: disciplinary concepts and methods specific for each program course
The content of the exit profile:
—
is considered to be essential
—
is considered as not having been acquired or completely acquired (that is why it is evaluated)
—
is the subject of explicit instruction
Moreover, what is included must be the result of:
—
planning
—
teaching
—
A reflection on comprehensive program assessments, and more globally on study programs as a whole,
leads us to take into account the integration of learning, basic education or the development of the person,
and the overall program approach.
Page 324 de 383
Exit profile: Study program: Plastic arts (500.04)
Basic training
Integrating
objectives
Axis 1: trans-disciplinary aspect
Axis 2: disciplinary aspect
(personal development)
(basics, concepts and approaches)
Personal attitudes
Procedures and
study methods
Intellectual skills
and processes
Oral and written
communication
Concepts,
principles,
theories
Procedural
knowledge
—
To produce
visual and
artistic
meaning
1.1 Displays
intellectual
curiosity and
openness of
spirit.
2.1 Can establish
study and
research goals
3.1 Shows proof
of observation
and analysis.
4.1 Drafts written
communicatio
ns that comply
with rules for
structuring
text, spelling,
syntax and
grammar.
5.1 Identifies
visual qualities
from the
sensory world
and
understands
the interactive
role they play.
6.1 Connects the
formal,
structural and
semantic
elements
interacting in
visual and
artistic
languages.
—
To use the
components
and methods
of organization
for visual
language
1.2 Is interested in
various forms
of artistic
expression.
2.2 Uses reading
and listening
strategies to
identify
pertinent
information in
documented
sources
3.2 Can produce
summaries.
4.2 Communicates
orally using
appropriate
terminology
and rules for
this type of
communicatio
n.
5.2 Produces
plastic visuals
from
observations
and a summary
of visual
qualities from
the sensory
world.
6.2 Chooses and
conceives
work methods
and artistic
research based
on his creative
process.
—
To use one’s
creativity.
1.3 Calls upon
daring, a
playful spirit
and
imagination.
2.3 Takes notes in
a clear and
orderly way.
3.3 Is able to
explain an
artistic
phenomenon.
4.3 Makes use of a
variety of
documentary
sources.
5.3 Involves his
sensory
perceptions in
his
productions.
6.3 Plans technical
stages for the
achievement of his
visual and artistic
work.
—
To conceive
and produce
various forms
1.4 Shows
commitment in
2.4 Locates,
organizes,
interprets and
3.4 Uses critical
arguments
4.4 Uses word
processing
5.4 Identifies the
components of
visual
6.4 Uses a variety
of tools,
materials,
Page 325 de 383
of images both
stationary and
in motion.
his process
re-uses
information
from a variety
of sources.
thoroughly.
software.
language.
procedures and
technologies,
exploiting their
strengths and
respecting
their limits.
Page 326 de 383
Basic training (continued)
Integrating
objectives
Axis 1: trans-disciplinary aspect
Axis 2: disciplinary aspect
(personal development)
(basics, concepts and approaches)
Personal attitudes
Procedures and
study methods
Intellectual skills
and processes
Oral and written
communication
Concepts,
principles,
theories
Procedural
knowledge
—
To establish
links between
the object of
analysis,
subject matter,
tools and
technical
processes.
1.5 Achieves tasks
autonomously
and displays
initiative.
2.5 Applies an
intellectual
work
methodology.
3.5 Identifies
problems.
5.5 Identifies
organization
methods for
visual
language.
6.5 Uses an
analytical
model in the
history of art.
—
To analyze,
explain and
critique
various artistic
productions
from the visual
arts world.
1.6 Acts with
discipline,
determination
and
perseverance.
2.6 Manages his
time and stress
effectively.
3.6 Displays an
ability to make
choices.
5.6 Knows the key
theoretical
concepts of
colour.
6.6 Communicates
orally or in
writing on the
production
process of his
images and
their meaning.
—
Awareness of
what is at
stake
individually,
socially,
politically and
historically
with artistic
creativity.
1.7 Displays a
strong code of
ethics.
2.7 Uses
teamwork
procedures.
3.7 Resolves
specific
problems by
connecting
knowledge
from different
fields.
5.7 Recognizes the
specifics of
various art
forms.
6.7 Accomplishes
the principal
tasks required
to organize an
exhibition of
works.
Page 327 de 383
Once essential learning and learning indicators used in the summative evaluation have been defined, it is
necessary to make sure that what is being evaluated has been taught. As seen in the exit profile
definition, what is retained is essential learning and these “learning objects” must be included in
instructional planning, the teaching content and the evaluation of learning.
The various learning objectives must be the understood implicitly. The grid of shared teaching
responsibilities helps ensure this and establishes a progression of learning throughout the program. It
highlights what is taught, in which course it will be taught and the type of instruction used, explicit,
practical or transference.
Explicit instruction (E):
The direct instruction of knowledge, skills and attitudes resulting from the planning of teaching activities,
the structuring and sequencing of the content and the evaluation of this knowledge.
Practical instruction (P):
Practical application of the methods and procedures taught during the explicit instruction. The student is
expected to apply learning he acquired previously.
It will probably be necessary to review the instructional stages of explicit teaching either to review the
learning or to provide feedback to the student.
Transfer-type instruction (T):
Knowledge, skills and attitudes already taught are used in another context or in a broader context. The
ability to transfer knowledge means to apply knowledge and skills to situations that are different from
those which prevailed at the time of the initial training. In the following pages, we will see a sample
grid of shared teaching responsibilities.
Page 328 de 383
1.1 Displays consistent quality of
spoken and written English.
1.3 Adopts a positive attitude vis-à-vis
change.
2.4 Demonstrates an ease of adaptation
for rapid changes in situations.
2.5 Participates actively in the work
environment and freely expresses
his opinion.
Program
P
P
P
P
P
1.2 Is autonomous in the acquisition of
knowledge.
E
E
P
2.1 Is attentive to his safety and the
safety of others.
E
2.2 Is methodical, conscientious, precise
and timely.
E
P
2.3 Displays determination and
responsibility for the task to be
achieved.
E
P
4 410-FHB-04 Supervision of personnel
4 410-FHB-03 Company dynamics and environment
1 190-FHC-03 Management of finished products and residues
1 190-FHD-04 Health and safety at work
1 190-FHE-03 Resolution of problems in work organization
1 190-FHF-03 Inventory management
1 190-FGH-04 Planting layout
1 190-FHH-05 Production volume of a transformation unit
1 190-FHJ-03 Production costs
1 190-FHK-06 Logistics of a transformation unit
1 190-FHL-10 Efficiency of a transformation unit
1 190-FHM-10 Production programming and control
1.4 Ability to analyze situations by
identifying the key components of
the problem.
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
E
P
E
E
P
E
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
E
P
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
E
P
P
E
P
P
P
P
T
T
T
T
T
T
P
P
T
P
T
E
P
P
T
Page 329 de 383
P
abc-XYZ-03 Complementary course
Section 6
1 109-XYZ-02 Physical education
Section 5
3 340-XYZ-03 Philosophy
Section 4
6 604-XYZ-03 English
Section 3
6 601-XYZ-04 French
1 190-FHB-07 Finished product quality control
P
1 190-FHA-07 Problem resolution relative to transformation of
wood products
P
1 190-FGX-04 Classification of hardwood and white pine
P
3 350-FHA-03 Communication and direction of work team
P
1 190-FGZ-05 Wood treatment and drying
190-FGV-03 Characteristics of products derived from wood
Section 2
1 190-FGY-06 Assembling and joining processes
190-FGT-04 Classification of softwood
P
190-FGW-03 Data processing techniques
Section 1
190-FGR-03 Data acquisition procedures
Exit profile statements
190-FGR-03 Software specialized in the transformation of forest
products
190-FGU-03 First cutting procedures
T = Transfer
190-FGQ-05 Measurements of logs and wood products
P = Practical instruction
420-FHA-04 Computer concepts
E = Explicit instruction
190-FGH-03 Characteristics of the wood
Forest management
190-FGN-03 Analysis of work functions
Example: Grid of shared teaching responsibilities
General training
P
T = Transfer
2.7 Has confidence in his resources.
E
P
Forest management
P
P
P
P
P
P
3.3 Displays critical judgment in the
evaluation of situations and
decision-making.
E
E
E
E
P
P
P
P
3.4 Reasons and argues with
determination on subjects related
to his professional field of activity
or knowledge
E
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
E
P
P
P
P
3.1 Uses and integrates the
knowledge of various specialty
fields and applies them to his
field of study.
E
E
P
P
3.2 Uses a problem solving steps
adapted to the given situations.
E
E
P
P
P
P
P
E
P
E
P
P
P
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
E
P
P
P
E
E
P
E
E
P
P
P
T
P
P
P
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
P
Page 330 de 383
Section 6
6 601-XYZ-04 French
Section 5
Section 4
2.6 Is concerned with environmental
protection and restoration
Section 3
wood products
Section 2
Section 1
products
Example: Grid of shared teaching responsibilities (cont’d)
General training
Program
T = Transfer
4.2 Writes texts that conform to
spelling and grammar rules, and
the syntax particular to the
language.
4.4 Verbally communicates an
opinion, a directive, a report on
teamwork or a presentation.
4.5 Analyzes, explains and critiques
with coherent and accurate text.
4.1 Uses accurate terminology to
write technical reports and to
orally express an opinion.
P
P
Forest management
E
P
P
P
E
P
P
4.3 Consults and uses technical
documents in English (for French
students)
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
P
E
E
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
T
E
P
P
P
P
E
P
P
P
E
P
P
E
E
P
T
T
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
T
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
E
E
T
E
T
E
Page 331 de 383
E
Section 6
Section 5
Section 4
6 601-XYZ-04 French
Section 3
E
P
wood products
P
Section 2
Section 1
products
3.5 Takes notes that are precise and
orderly for interpretation, the
writing and drafting of a report.
Exit profile statement
General training
Program
T = Transfer
5.6 Identifies the equipment and the
tools used in the transformation of
wood products.
6.1 Manages supply and finished
products for a transformation unit.
5.2 Applies the principles of
metrology.
5.3 Applies the concepts of anatomy,
physics, mechanics, forest
chemistry to characterize wood
and its by-products.
E
5.5 Applies the concepts of
measurement and the
classification rules for hardwood
and softwood.
E
Forest management
E
P
5.4 Applies the concepts of cutting,
drying, joining and assembling.
E
P
E
E
E
P
E
E
P
P
P
E
P
P
E
P
E
P
E
P
E
P
P
P
P
P
E
P
E
P
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
E
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
E
E
Program
E
E
P
P
5.1 Interprets the information in
outlines and drawings and
establishes operating standards.
P
E
P
P
E
P
T
T
T
T
P
T
T
P
T
T
T
T
P
T
P
T
P
P
P
P
T
Page 332 de 383
Section 6
6 601-XYZ-04 French
Section 5
Section 4
Section 3
wood products
Section 2
Section 1
190-FGR-03 Software specialized in the transformation of
forest products
General training
T = Transfer
6.5 Organizes and supervises the
execution of work within a
transformation unit.
7.1 Behaves professionally, giving
priority to health and safety,
protection and respect of
standards.
Forest management
Program
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
T
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
T
P
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
T
E
E
E
P
T
E
P
T
Page 333 de 383
Section 6
Section 5
6 601-XYZ-04 French
Section 4
Section 3
Section 2
6.4 Ensures quality control at each
stage of the process, applies the
necessary corrective measures
and follows up.
wood products
P
6.3 Carries out a data analysis,
evaluates the gaps relative to the
objectives and plans the necessary
interventions.
P
6.2 Establishes data collection
protocol , collects and compiles
information on wood
transformation processes with or
without using computer tools.
Section 1
products
General training
T = Transfer
7.3 Listens, respects the opinion of
others and offers his opinion to
move forward.
7.4 Evaluates his professional
experiences for the purpose of
ongoing improvement.
E
P
Forest management
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
7.2 Collaborates with different
participants involved in the
transformation of wood products.
P
P
P
P
E
P
P
P
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
E
P
P
T
T
P
P
T
T
P
Page 334 de 383
Section 6
6 601-XYZ-04 French
Section 5
Section 4
Section 3
wood products
Section 2
Section 1
190-FGR-03 Software specialized in the transformation of
forest products
General training
Program
Tool 7.C
Is it a valid comprehensive program assessment?
“A comprehensive assessment designed to attest to the development of competencies targeted in a study
program must necessarily go beyond the totality or summary of the learning covered in the course.
Located at the end of the program, it must also validate the result of individual training based on the level
of competency achieved. For this, the comprehensive assessment must verify if the competencies targeted
in the program were effectively developed.
The comprehensive assessment cannot be built on the basis of different things to be learned or be
considered the sum of important knowledge that the student has to master. It must be built on the basis of
the competencies targeted by the overall training program and analyzed using standards that define the
level of expected competency. The test is not a synthesis, a digest of all that was learned. If this were the
case, we could not determine the level of competency achieved based on cumulative learning.
The test cannot be an abstract of all things learned. It must focus on the ability to confront situations that
are relatively complex. These situations are chosen based on the requirements demanded for an entry
level in the labour market or at university. The test must validate both the specific and the general
training. Indeed, competencies developed in general training will determine the use of English documents
(for French students) in certain situations, of deductive reasoning needed to identify the problem, and the
quality of the texts to be produced. The problem situation is thus selected according to its propensity to
require the broadest use of the competencies and its component developed throughout the training
program.
Competencies developed through specific training can be seen more clearly in tasks to be accomplished,
whereas those developed through general training can be seen clearly in the ability to process the problem
situation. However, all the competencies necessary for resolution of the problem are implicitly present in
the chosen situation. The comprehensive assessment must essentially allow for the observation of the
capacity to resolve relatively complex problems. To achieve this, the test must:
—
introduce problem situations that are realistic;
—
introduce situations representative of those encountered by beginners and neophytes;
—
allow for a judgment to be rendered on the level of competency achieved.
In fact, a valid comprehensive assessment is not a collection of components that belong to prior tests and
lower levels of training. These have already been evaluated. The assessment is not an abstract of prior
learning evaluations. It is the evaluation of a higher level of training. The comprehensive assessment must
allow the observation of student performance at every step of the problem solving process.
To accomplish this, the task must be:
—
relatively complex;
—
definitely new;
—
representative of situations awaiting the graduate;
—
sufficiently problematic to be a valid attestation of competencies developed by the program.
To perform a comprehensive assessment is to use an evaluation strategy, not for assessing learning but for
assessing competency development. As in the case for the evaluation of learning, it will be necessary to
distinguish between a learning situation and an evaluation. We very often believe that the most complex
situation a student has to face is work placement. This is certainly possible. However, for a test to be
Page 335 de 383
valid the situations presented must represent real life situations and the learning must have enabled
development of the competencies prior to their assessment. It is a test, a task that the student must
accomplish that allows for the observation and qualification of specific competencies. This task is not to
be predetermined, but rather developed by the student himself in relation to the problems presented to
him.”103
Preparing students throughout the program
Like other training interventions, the evaluation of learning is conceived and conducted within a program
perspective. Evaluation methods among courses should display consistency and connections that motivate
students to focus their efforts on learning and help integrate learning rather than compartmentalize it.
These evaluation methods are conceived by taking into account the student level of development, a level
that increases as students advance in the program. They maximize the development of self-evaluation
skills and metacognition. Within each course, evaluation activities support learning so that each course
effectively contributes what is expected and so the different forms of learning acquired in the various
courses are integrated to the whole as effectively as possible. The results of the summative evaluation
carried out in each course accurately reflect the degree of mastery of the acquired learning for each
student. In this way, subsequent courses can count on a certain basic acquired knowledge. When many
courses contribute to the same objective, we have to design both the formative and summative evaluations
with regard to the whole of the courses in order to best achieve overall objectives.
In short, all evaluation interventions contribute in their own fashion to the integration of learning
throughout the program. At program end, the comprehensive assessment can officially validate the
acquisition of essential learning for each student and its integration during the training period. As stated
by Jacques Laliberté (1995):
“The comprehensive assessment will allow students to
demonstrate their ability to integrate and transfer learning. It is
the most elaborate and complete stage in a program progression
where students will have had many occasions and varied
contexts to develop and demonstrate their abilities.”
103
Translated from Michel Saint-Onge, Pour une épreuve synthèse de programme utile, Les cahiers du Renouveau, cahier no 3,
Collège Montmorency.
Page 336 de 383
Choosing the type of evaluation test
The CPA can take various forms: project at end of studies, research, simulation, case study, portfolio,
resolution of complex problems, complex productions, practical demonstrations, summary exam
accompanied by practical activities, work production, etc.
In the context of competency assessment, evaluation tasks are generally complex and mobilize several
types of knowledge and resources. They are authentic in that the achievement context for the tasks
represents real life in the workplace or in higher education. These tasks allow for “observable
demonstrations” of learning achieved by the student. They must also allow for the collection of data that
corresponds to the selected indicators and criteria.
The development of a complex evaluation task generally includes:
—
a description of the initial situation;
—
instructions on actions to be performed;
—
precise details on expected results and method for presenting these results104.
Examples of complex tasks that students can be asked to accomplish105:
—
design and production of a plan (research plan, intervention plan for a professional field, etc.)
—
analysis, interpretation of results based on the context, a theoretical framework, etc.
—
production of a summary on a topic, using various sources
—
within a research framework: elaborate the problem situation, develop the methodology, data
collection, data processing, interpretation of the results, etc.
—
within the framework of a group or personal intervention: analyze the situation, determine the
problem situation, plan of an intervention, implement the intervention, use technical resources,
evaluate the results of the intervention;
—
problem resolution;
—
evaluation of a process or a production in a given field, in a field of activities;
—
public presentation (art interpretation, sport presentation, etc.);
—
composition, creation.
In the context of competency development, the choice and development of evaluation tasks must conform
as much as possible to integration and authenticity criteria and focus on competency. With regard to
situations that promote the realization of evaluation tasks, Mitchell (1989)106 proposes the following:
—
initially look for tasks that can be carried out in real life situations (ex.: training in the workplace,
probation, etc.);
—
in the absence of real life situations, choose sample situations that relate to real tasks (ex.: partial
training in the workplace, laboratory, role play, projects, etc.);
104
For example, for the development of a complex task such as a “problem situation”, refer to the index card included and to
the examples of problem situations presented in Pôle de l’Est, Processus de planification d’un cours centré sur le
développement de compétence, 1996, p. 91, p. 303-305
105
List of complex tasks generally requested of students in D’Amour and others, L’évaluation des apprentissages au
collégial : du cours au programme, Fascicule III-IV, 2e volet-Doc. D.12b, Avenues quant au comment faire. Comment faire
l’évaluation des apprentissages? Comment faire l’animation pédagogique sur ce thème?, 1997.
106
Adapted from L. Mitchell. “Evaluation of competency”, cited by J. Burke, Competency Based Education and Training, NY,
The Palmer Press, 1989.
Page 337 de 383
—
In the absence of situations dealing with “real contexts”, evaluate student performance in simulated
situations (for example, problem situations, case studies, authentic problems, etc.) by evaluating the
knowledge when it is used to resolve problems or deal concretely with situations (in-depth
treatment).
The type of test selected must ensure that:
—
methods used provide students with an opportunity to demonstrate what has been acquired in
training;
—
suggested tasks take into account the student’s level of integration at the end of the study program;
—
proposed tasks are authentic;
—
proposed tasks are truly representative of those encountered by a beginner.
An example of a comprehensive program assessment is provided on the next page.
Page 338 de 383
Presentation of the Plastic/Visual arts program (500.04)
The Visual arts (500.04) program is a pre-university training program designed primarily for those who
wish to continue their studies in the visual arts.
This general-purpose training is required for entry into the following university programs: Visual arts,
Teaching Art, History of art, Photography, Graphic arts, Design, Applied design, Multi-disciplinary arts,
Cinematography and Scenography.
Integration objectives of the program
Plastic arts (500.04)
—
To produce visual and artistic meaning.
—
To use components and methods of organization for visual language. Develop creativity,
—
To conceive and produce images (stationary and in motion) in various forms.
—
To establish links between the object of analysis, the subject matter, tools and technical processes.
—
To analyze, explain and critique various artistic productions from the world of visual arts.
—
To be aware of the individual, social, political and historical stakes relative to artistic creativity.
Summary of a comprehensive program assessment
The comprehensive program assessment is presented to the student in the following manner:
A. Production and distribution
1. Create an artistic work in visual arts. This work will attest to the integration of student knowledge
and skills who has reached the end of his training program.
2. Showcase the work of program graduates in a professional context, within the framework of a
collective exhibition.
B. Process and speech
3. Write an informative text on the work presented.
a) Document the process used to produce the work.
b) Analyze and situate it within the context of the history of art.
This part of the test is carried out through the use of a written text presented orally during a round table
discussion or any other public presentation deemed appropriate.
Page 339 de 383
Detailed description of a comprehensive program assessment
The work
Objective:
The student demonstrates his integration of knowledge and ability to produce visual meaning through the
production of a work in the field of visual arts. He displays skills in conceiving and realizing a work of
art by using tools, materials, techniques and processes specific to his field of knowledge.
Form and content:
The work produced within the framework of this integration activity is subjective, new and achieved in a
discipline of the student’s choice within the visual arts milieu. He makes his choice in consultation with
the teacher and selects from the following: sculpture, installation, painting, drawing, digital photography,
or video. He can choose one of these disciplines or integrate two or more.
The collective exhibition
Objectives:
The principal objective of this activity is to have the student showcase his work to the public in a
professional context. The student must therefore display skills in organizing an exhibition of his work
while taking into account all the aspects of such an activity. The student participates actively in all stages
of realization: from the technical preparation to the exhibition of his work, from the promotion of the
event to the communication of information on the work he is displaying.
Form and content:
An exhibition of works from each student within the group at the Musée régional de Rimouski or any
other location deemed to be professional and appropriate. This exhibition includes communication
normally used within these contexts:
—
Press release
—
Photographs of works on display
—
Invitation, poster
—
Summary texts of artistic approach used by the artists
—
Interpretative texts for the public
Student tasks and responsibilities:
A. Individual responsibilities:
—
To produce the work to be exhibited
—
To draft a short informative text on the work
—
To photograph the work to be exhibited
—
To collaborate in all the stages of the project
—
To offer assistance to other students in the group
—
To help assemble exhibition, under the supervision students selected to oversee this task
—
To attend the opening of the exhibition
—
To draft a written text that will be presented orally during a round table discussion
Page 340 de 383
B. Shared responsibilities for small groups:
—
Advertising material: poster and invitation; press material: press release and interviews;
interpretative sheets for the exhibition room: texts and index cards for work identification;
planning of the physical layout of the exhibition, assembly and posting
—
Assembly plans of and lighting
—
Identification, packing and transport of the works; technical assembly of the work; lighting for
the works
—
Preparation of preview: invitation mailing list
—
Reception for guests and a short speech to introduce the exhibition
C. Responsibilities shared by entire course-group:
—
To maintain a climate favourable to the expression of individual viewpoints, while respecting
the ethics relative to this type of activity
—
To ensure the project maintains a professional quality
Written communication
Objectives:
The role of written communication is to validate student integration of knowledge and skills on a
theoretical and historical basis. The written text also reflects the student’s capacity to adequately use the
language, to consult varied documented sources and to apply a methodology to work and research.
Form and content:
Create a text of approximately six pages (double spaced) using data processing software and print five
copies on laser printer.
The text contains the following sections:
1.
The process:
stages reached and choices made in the realization of the work
2.
Problematics:
working hypotheses, research venues and aesthetic choices
3.
Description and analysis of the work:
formal, structured and semantic components interacting in the visual arts
4.
Positioning of the work within a historical context of art:
relationship between a student’s work and a trend in art, a school of art or a movement in the
history of art
5.
Documentary sources consulted:
complete mediagraphy including at least two English references
Page 341 de 383
The round table
Objective:
This main purpose of the activity is to validate student communication skills and ability to defend his
arguments.
The student reads his written communication to the entire group and to jury members for the
comprehensive program assessment.
Form and content:
The oral presentation of the written communication is done at a round table involving the group and the
jury. The activity is held over two course periods and students take turns presenting their text, following
a schedule established by the professor.
Each student is given a certain timeframe to give his presentation. He can add visual documents to his
presentation or any other communication tool that enhances and clarifies the presentation.
At the end of their presentation, students answer questions from the audience. A discussion time is set
aside at the end of the individual interventions. Those in attendance and the participants in the round table
then initiate a discussion based on the ideas communicated during the presentation.
Realization context
The production of work to be exhibited
When the introductory courses and preparation for the integration project are over, students work
individually or in small teams. There are regular meetings with the teacher and occasional meetings with
the course group.
The production of work is done in a workshop and is supervised by the teacher. Work continues in a
regular way outside the reserved period on the student’s schedule (while respecting the weighting
The student maintains a logbook during the realization of this project. It is regularly reviewed by the
teacher so that individual student process can be monitored.
The collective exhibition
The teacher advises students of the various forms that this part of the integration project can assume.
Following this presentation, the group uses critical thinking to help select the methods to accomplish this
portion of the comprehensive program assessment.
When preparation begins for the collective exhibition, group meetings are more frequent and this
continues until the end of the project.
Students work in teams and collaborate on the production of the exhibition. The teacher provides
supervision.
Written communication (presented orally)
Once the exhibition is open, the student continues his work individually, meeting the teacher regularly for
support in completing his written work.
The course group reconvenes during the last two weeks of the trimester for the oral presentations on the
written work. This is followed by individual and collective formative evaluations of the project.
Page 342 de 383
An evaluation of the comprehensive program assessment
Individual student production is evaluated by a jury comprised of three teachers within the program and if
possible, a representative from the professional field.
Stages of realization
1.
Preparatory stages for the realization of the integration project:
Methodology and pedagogical formula used for this activity
Rules and code of ethics for teamwork
Planning of work to be realized
Schedule for meetings
2.
Choice and definition of problematics of the individual project, approved by the teacher
3.
Planning of individual approach for the realization of the project:
Preliminary work (drafts, technical tests, models, prototypes, ...)
Documentary research
Choice of process, procedures, tools and materials
4.
Establishment of timetable for individual meetings:
Regular formative evaluation on the approach used and partial results achieved within the process
of actualization
5.
Production of the work in a workshop
6.
Planning of the collective exhibition
7.
Distribution of tasks inherent to the preparation of an exhibition:
Preparation of the communication promotional material for the event: posters and invitations, press
releases and photographs of works on display
Drafting of the interpretive texts for the exhibition hall
Sketch of proposed exhibition (layout of the exhibition area)
8.
The exhibition:
Preparatory steps for transport and packaging of work.
Transporting works
Final exhibition plan
Exhibition and hanging up of works
Lighting
Placing the interpretive texts and identification cardboards
Preparatory steps for a private viewing of the exhibition
Welcoming guests at the private viewing
Media interviews
Dismantling of the exhibition, packaging and transportation for the return trip
Page 343 de 383
9.
Drafting of the written communication for the round table:
Documentary research
Detailed outline of text
Drafting and computer processing of text
9.
Presentation of the written communication
10.
Individual and collective formative evaluation of the integration project
11.
Summative evaluation of the integration project by a jury
Cégep de Rimouski, 1999
Page 344 de 383
Tool 7.D
Three grids in support of the evaluation
and self-evaluation
of a comprehensive program assessment 107
1.
Checklist for the documents required in the evaluation of a CPA
2.
Summary description of the CPA
3.
CPA evaluation grid
107
Translated from Cécile D’Amour and the Research Group at Performa, L’évaluation des apprentissages au collégial du
cours au programme, [s. l.], 1996[http://www.educ.usherb.ca/performa/documents/fiches/D_Amour_et_al.htm], Université
de Sherbrooke, Performa.
Page 345 de 383
Grid 1: Checklist of documents necessary
for the evaluation of a CPA
Evaluation of a comprehensive program assessment
In terms of the following components, the document
is:
complete
incomplete
missing
Program data
1. Exit profile:
—
Essential learning required in general training
—
Essential learning required in specific training
2. Grid of shared teaching responsibilities relative to specific
training
including those of general training
“Test” data
3. General information
a)
Number of sections
b)
Sequence of sections
c)
Relative importance of sections
d)
Methods used to make a judgment on the overall
test based on the results obtained in each section
e)
Ways of providing student feedback
4. Information on individual sections of the test
a)
Evaluated objects and integration dimensions
covered
b)
Evaluation methods (ex.: project, problem
situation, etc.)
c)
Learning indicators
d)
Evaluation criteria and their relative importance
e)
Minimum requirements for each section (success
thresholds)
Page 346 de 383
With regard to the following aspects, the document
is:
complete
incomplete
missing
General conditions
f)
Admission requirements for the CPA
g)
Passing requirement
h)
Conditions for success
i)
Conditions for rewriting
Data on student preparation
5. Information relative to the CPA that will be
communicated to students (what information? when?
how?)
6. Preliminary preparation throughout the program:
Effective training and evaluation methods on level of
learning integration in the course
7. Immediate student preparation (in particular for an
“integrative activity” in a course)
8. Preparation for rewriting for students who fail
Comments by the creative team
9. On the choices made (which ones? how? why?)
10. On the relationship between the selected indicators and
the acquired knowledge to be evaluated
11. On the aspects to be improved in later versions of the
CPA
12. On the evaluation methods for CPA experimentation
13. On the methods to consider during later development of
equivalent versions of the test
Page 347 de 383
Grid 2a: Summary description of the CPA
Evaluation of a comprehensive program assessment
General information (refer to Grid 1, component 3)
Summary description of each component
a)
Number of sections
b)
Sequence of sections
c)
Relative importance of
sections
d) What ensures that the
student is truly given an
opportunity to demonstrate
his acquired knowledge
e)
Methods for rendering a
judgment on the overall test
based on the results
obtained in each section
f)
Student feedback
Page 348 de 383
Evaluation Grid 2b: Summary description of the CPA
General information (refer to Grid 1, component 4)
a) Evaluated objects and
dimensions of integration that are
covered
b)
Methods of evaluation
(project, problem situation,
training in the workplace,
problem resolution, etc.)
c)
Learning indicators
d)
Evaluation criteria and
relative importance
e)
Minimum requirements for
each section (success thresholds)
Page 349 de 383
Evaluation grid 2c: Summary description of the CPA
Information on general conditions (refer to Grid 1, component 4f, g, h, i):
a)
Admission requirements
b)
Passing requirements
c)
Conditions for success
d)
Conditions for rewriting
Page 350 de 383
Grid 3: Qualitative analysis of a CPA
Presentation
This grid is a tool used in the evaluation of a CPA test. It makes it possible to systemize the analysis of
the test and record partial judgments that will be rendered for the final assessment of the whole. During
the experimentation period of a CPA, the grid can also be used in a formative perspective to support the
development of more satisfactory tests.
All evaluation grids are based on choices. This particular frame of reference refers to the summative
evaluation and the integration of learning (components of the frame of reference that are valid for the
evaluation both from a course perspective and a program perspective) as well as the definition and
particular requirements of the CPA.
The requirements, which a CPA must respect, are numerous because of the nature of this test (summative
evaluation at end of program) and its objectives (fundamental, indicative of student ability to transfer
knowledge and resulting from the integration of varied learning acquired in the two program
components).
The relative importance of the requirements varies according to the perspective.
Some are impossible to circumvent:
—
on an ethical level (fairness and equity, for example); and
—
on the methodological level (validity of the evaluation tools and the soundness of judgment, for
example);
Others are of great importance:
—
on the pedagogical level (the challenging and motivational character of the CPA and the feedback
provided);
And one is highly significant:
—
on the practical level (the efficiency of the operation).
It is noteworthy that all data recorded in the CPA file (data on the program data, on the test itself and on
the students’ preparation as well as comments of the creative team – see Grid no 1) are used to make a
judgment on the CPA test in question, but this data is not considered in isolation. Indeed, to judge
whether each requirement relative to the CPA is respected, there is much data that must be taken into
account simultaneously, as well as any interactions.
Codes used for marking judgments
For the overall judgment on the test
U
“unsatisfactory”: certain requirements were not met and must be achieved or improved.
P
“passing”: basic requirements are all met minimally (and some more than minimally) but
improvements are expected.
S
“satisfactory”: all requirements are met (more than minimally).
VS
“very satisfactory”: all requirements are met more than minimally and on the whole
characterized by a high level of quality.
Page 351 de 383
For the judgment relative to each requirement
NM
“not met”.
MM
“minimally met”.
SM
“satisfactorily met”.
Page 352 de 383
Grid 4: Qualitative analysis of a CPA
Evaluation grid for the comprehensive assessment of a program
Overall judgment based on all the partial judgments recorded below.
Unsatisfactory: ______ Passing: ______ Satisfactory: ______ Very satisfactory: ____
Requirement 108
NM
MM
SM
Data relative to the program
1. Includes the essential learning for the program
= Exit profile
= Clear, concise and organized presentation
2. Includes information to indicate at what moment and in what
course it was achieved
= Grid of shared teaching responsibilities
= Information on relationships between fields of learning
= Information on the progress of learning
There is a consensus on the subject of this data for teachers involved in
3. the specific training
4. the overall program
Data relative to the evaluation test
A. Respect for the particular nature of a CPA
5. Objects of evaluation selected for the CPA are representative
of essential learning for the program
6. The objects selected call upon learning achieved within the
whole program (both components)
108
NM = not met
MM = minimally met
SM = satisfactorily met
Page 353 de 383
Requirement 109
NM
MM
SM
7. Objects retained for the CPA cover the required fields and the
choices made in the subject matter are justified.
8. The various dimensions of learning integration are present
=
Integration
of
acquired
knowledge
(retention,
organization, personal acquisition, awareness of the
acquired learning)
= Integration of acquired learning into practices (in actions
accomplished and arguments to support them)
B.
Coherence between evaluation and training
9. Providing effective training so students acquire the necessary
learning and reach the level of integration required by the test.
We make sure what is evaluated has been taught.
C. Criteria-based evaluation
10. The evaluation judgment is criteria-based.
11. The evaluation criteria are clearly defined.
12. The minimum requirements are clearly defined.
13. The requirement level is reasonable and corresponds to what
could be expected from a graduate student.
14. The requirement level is comparable to other CPAs.
D. Accuracy of the evaluation judgment
15. Through the validity of the evaluation tool
The number, nature and sequence of the indicators in sections
of the test, the authenticity of the tasks, the quality of the tools
and the relevance of general conditions are likely to allow for
an accurate judgment on what is being evaluated.
109
NM = not met
MM = minimally met
Page 354 de 383
Requirement110
NM
MM
SM
16. Through the relevance and the thoroughness of the judgment
development process
The choice of evaluators, their work methods and supervision,
how judgment is formed for each test section and for the whole
test, and the benchmarks used for the judgments (evaluation
criteria, definition of the minimum requirements) are likely to
support the accuracy of the judgment.
E.
Stability of the evaluation judgment and its results
17. From one student to another, from one team of evaluators to
another. Conditions relative to the exercise of judgment are
established in order to support the stability of the judgment.
18 From one test version to another
Various versions of the test are designed to ensure the
reliability of test results regardless of the version used.
F.
Requirements concerning student relationship to the CPA
19. The test is designed to offer students a real opportunity to
demonstrate acquired learning (nature of the test, latitude given
students, opportunity to be heard, etc.).
20. The test is designed so that results accurately reflect the degree
of mastery achieved by students at the end of the program.
21. The test is designed so that results accurately reflect the degree
of mastery of a particular student, while taking into account the
singular character of the integration achieved.
22. The nature of the test is such that it becomes a meaningful
student activity, a challenge, a stimulating and motivating
undertaking.
110
NM = not met
MM = minimally met
Page 355 de 383
Requirement111
NM
MM
SM
23. Measures are taken so that rules that impact the activity are
known and understood by the students.
24. Evaluations done during courses are designed to give students
an accurate picture of their progress in the attainment of learning
evaluated by the CPA.
25. Methods to provide students with feedback on the test are
identified. The main purpose is to help students understand the
judgment made by the evaluators, but they also provide a clear
understanding of the learning they have acquired, at the very
moment they enter a new phase in their ongoing training.
26. Measures are taken so that students who fail the CPA can
adequately prepare for rewriting it.
G.
Requirements relative to the overall CPA
27. The elaborated CPA is the result of a consensus among
teachers involved.
28. in the specific training
29. in the overall program
30. The elaborated CPA complies with policies relative to the
31. The CPA operation is efficient: it is carried out correctly while
respecting the responsibilities, time and effort required by teachers
and students alike.
111
NM = not met
MM = minimally met
Page 356 de 383
Complementary documents
Complementary document 1
Student perceptions and expectations112
Summary
Initially, we discuss how students experience learning evaluations, then we examine the impact that the
evaluation of learning is likely to have on student life: at school (their perception of school and
evaluations as well as their study habits) and on their future (aspirations, plans for higher studies and
career). Finally, we look at student expectations regarding evaluations and this in turn tells us something
about their concepts.
In drafting its opinion for the ministere de l’Éducation titled Des conditions de réussite pour le collégial,
the Conseil supérieur de l’éducation met with students in their immediate environment. During the
interviews, the Conseil spoke with students enrolled in one of three pre-university or twelve technical
programs, from 19 public colleges and 4 private institutions throughout the region. Under the heading
“Conditions for success in college”, we asked students what they thought of learning evaluations and
teacher-student relationships.
The document produced by the CSE (Conseil supérieur de l’éducation) as a result of these meetings
became our main source of information on student perceptions and expectations (for this section and
section B.3).
Perceptions and feelings with regard to the evaluation of learning
The CSE reports that students expressed “critical points of view” on the way the evaluation of learning is
carried out (CSE, 1995, p. 59).
In section C.4 we present the teaching practices that students are most critical of.
Let us keep in mind that students feel that certain aspects of current evaluations, due to their nature, can
result in serious prejudices to them. In this respect, what the students dislike about evaluations is that
their purpose is to “select and control above all, and control badly, which results in a serious bias toward
students” (CSE, 1995, p. 59) as well as “the loss of a meaningful evaluation as it rests too heavily on the
subjectivity of individuals […] a source of serious prejudice against students” (ibid., p. 60). (Refer also to
Wiggins, 1993)
The likely impact of the evaluation of learning on students
Impact of evaluation methods on concepts, attitudes, study habits and performance
Many studies tend to show that summative evaluation methods (content, tools, criteria, requirements)
have a major impact on student learning strategies and study habits (cf. Howe et Ménard, 1993,
p. 65-67; Roy, 1991, p. 121-125).
Evaluation methods also impact student conceptions: they convey messages on school, training,
evaluations, etc. When there is no consistency between the implicit message conveyed by the methods
and the teacher’s message, the latter “shoots himself in the foot”, say Howe and Ménard (1993, p. 66).
In fact, it seems that the message, which carries the greatest weight and influence on student concepts,
arises from evaluations methods. This message is counterproductive if it does not support the efforts of
112
Translated from Cécile D’Amour and Groupe de travail at Performa, L’évaluation des apprentissages au collégial : du
cours au programme, [s. l.]. Booklet I. La problématique, April 1996, p. 11-17.
Page 357 de 383
teaching personnel i.e., training that is in-depth, long-lasting and that leads to change in a student; and
student commitment to his studies and a serious belief in evaluation of learning activities. Some of the
evaluation methods and attitudes of evaluators that transmit counterproductive messages are: (and the
list is not exhaustive)
—
continuous summative evaluation practices, such as: many juxtaposed stages of summative
evaluations, each dealing with small sections of the whole — not to mention the practice of giving
points for attendance to courses, a practice strongly denounced by students (CSE, 1995, p. 59);
(These practices result in the standardization of summative evaluations; and as such, encourage the
student to be content with short-term surface learning.)
—
comments and behaviour that give the impression that the goal of an academic activity is evaluation
rather than learning;
(It appears that students who think the teacher is pursuing evaluation goals believe the latter is
simply trying to validate learning results rather than develop student knowledge, deepen
understanding and develop competency [cf. Dweck, 1989, cited by Tardif, 1995, p. 187].)
—
forecast of poor student evaluation results (weak average or strong chances of failure) mentioned by
the teacher;
(Students say that attitudes like these can make them “hate the content and even the total academic
experience.” [CSE, 1995, p. 88].)
—
evaluation tools and remedial requirements that do not correspond to training objectives, for
example, the practice of “exams packed with difficult questions” or using a conformist approach,
that is devoid of critical meaning, just to get “good grades” (CSE, 1995, p. 59);
(Students have reported the de-motivating effect that evaluations of this nature have on them.)
—
a wide variation in concepts and methods of evaluation, such as “contradictory approaches from one
teacher to another”, and evaluations “that depend too much on a person’s subjectivity”. (CSE, 1995,
p. 59 and 60).
(These characteristics result in a “loss of meaning for the evaluation” which in turn can lead to
student de-motivation and an increase in misunderstanding [ibid., p. 60].)
To avoid such counterproductive effects, we must ensure that evaluation methods transmit messages that
are consistent with educational objectives. This presupposes that the goals are clearly established and
transmitted to students. Cégep science professors Dedic and Rosenfield (1994) studied this question and
came up with interesting results.
Page 358 de 383
Impact of evaluation results on personal aspirations, higher studies and career plans
One of the main messages conveyed by students in the CSE meeting, focused on the power of “grades”
and the distinction between evaluation of learning at collegial level and selection for entry into university
programs.
“Considering the power that grades have, we (the students) believe that measures
have to be taken to grade more accurately and ensure equity in evaluations. Also,
with regard to the validation of studies, colleges should not be concerned with
university quotas during the evaluation and should focus strictly on the attainment
of established objectives.” (CSE, 1995, p. 60)
Based on the use that universities and/or employers make of grades, they will have an impact on both
study and career paths.
They can also impact any aspirations students may have (or had) relative to a specific discipline or a
particular field of activity. Studies on career advancement (particularly in mathematics and science) show
that students limit future opportunities because they believe, in light of poor evaluation results (not
necessarily failures), that a certain discipline or field of activity is “not for them”. Given this impact —
that influences the student from within and without — we can understand how a “poorly managed”
evaluation can “cause serious damage” to a student” (CSE, 1995, p. 60).
Voicing expectations
Comments made during CSE meetings held in the student environment provide information on student
concepts and expectations relative to teachers’ competence and attitude, their interventions and the
evaluation of learning. According to the CSE, these expectations are for the most part, justified.
Relative to the evaluation of learning, students want “an evaluation that helps them understand the
subject matter rather than one limited to the purposes of controlling and sanctioning” (CSE, 1995, p. 86);
they list their expectations as follows (ibid., p. 59 and 60):
—
an evaluation that grades fairly, that is equitable;
—
an evaluation that provides information on personal strengths and weaknesses;
—
an evaluation that includes the integration of various knowledge;
—
an evaluation that facilitates progress, that is part of the learning process and encourages growth;
—
rather than an evaluation that selects and controls above all, and exercises bad control at that.
As we can see from the evaluation practices brought to our attention by students (cf. section C.4), there is
a convergence between student perspective and what we read in current literature on the evaluation of
learning. In both cases, great importance is given to the support of learning and the requirements for a
quality evaluation that is accurate and fair (cf. section C.2).
Finally, students expressed their expectations and concepts regarding other teaching practices – the
evaluation of learning cannot be disconnected, either for the student or the teacher, from the whole of
teaching practices. In the following section, B.3, we will review expectations with respect to teacher
attitudes and student-teacher relationships. Expectations relative to teaching practices are covered in
section C.1 (p. 27 and 28).
Page 359 de 383
Relational and affective dimensions
Summary
Initially, we look at the teacher-student relationship within learning evaluation situations. We examine
how students see this relationship and how important it is for them. We then take a quick look at the
factors to be considered for three delicate affective issues involving both the teacher and the student,
where they come face to face, experience shared ideas and opposing views: topics of fairness, selfassertion and the cohabitation of guide and judge within the teacher.
Comment — In this section and the preceding one, our principal source of information on the expectations
and perceptions of cégep students is the Avis sur les conditions de réussite au collegial, which was
produced by the CSE subsequent to meetings held with the student body.
The teacher-student relationship as seen by the student
It is interesting to note, that a teacher’s ability to enter in a relationship with students, is one of the three
elements students use to gauge competency in teachers (CSE, 1995, p. 84).
We see that the teacher-student relationship is at the heart of student concerns. Indeed, in addition to
disciplinary competency, three of the five major concerns that students have with teaching personnel
touch upon this relationship: teacher availability and personal contact with students (ibid., p. 84), a
teacher-student relationship marked by respect (ibid., p. 85 et 86), and student-teacher reciprocity with
regard to self-discipline and demands (ibid., p. 86 et 87).
In the field of evaluation of learning, these required qualities are of prime importance because the
evaluation is an act of communication (refer to Hadji, 1990, who refers in turn to Watzlawick).
In dealing with respect in the teacher-student relationship, students who took part in the CSE consultation
would particularly like to see:
“the presence of an assistant rather than a judge, a guide rather than a boss, a
person who controls the course and not his students, who treats them as adults not
children, who demonstrates a respectful attitude and is not arrogant or scornful
[…]” (CSE, 1995, p. 85).
With regard to self-discipline and demands, students appreciate teachers who are demanding, but want it
to be reciprocal:
“To demand yes, but under the following conditions: to be as demanding of
themselves; to demand development and not control; to show reasonable limits
and exert reasonable pressures; within the overall perspective of requirements
imposed on students; remembering to give clear instructions; showing the
usefulness and providing feedback on the results in an atmosphere of confidence,
complicity and negotiation.” (CSE, 1995, p. 87)
In connection with another student concern — teaching approaches that allow the greatest number of
students to grasp the subject matter — we find more comments on the teacher-student relationship in the
Students have:
“asserted, on many occasions, the right to make mistakes […], and also the right
to benefit from the mistakes, to receive feedback on examinations and work, that
is timely and thorough” (ibid., p. 86)
Moreover, students value …:
Page 360 de 383
“When the teacher’s behaviour motivates them not “to give up”; also teachers who
share in the pride of student success or progress, however slight that progress may
be.” (ibid., p. 86)
Students also express their appreciation for teachers who display openness. It is seen as a “sign of respect
for their right to be treated as “individuals” involved in a learning process.” (ibid., p. 86)
The following thoughts concern, either directly or indirectly, the evaluation of learning. We note that
students wish for:
—
Teachers who display thoroughness, that are as demanding of themselves as they are of their
students;
—
Teachers who are accomplices more than judges;
—
Teachers who treat them like adults and not children;
—
A climate of confidence and mutual respect;
—
Reasonable requirements;
—
Requirements related to development rather than control;
—
Clear instructions, explicit meaning and usefulness;
—
Recognition that learning is a process, the right of students to make mistakes and to learn from these
mistakes;
—
Thorough and timely feedback on work and exams.
Three delicate affective issues
The teacher-student relationship has an affective dimension. In matters relating to the evaluation of
learning, the emotional stakes are generally even higher than in the other aspects of the relationship.
There are indeed few relationships that are more delicate than those that require the giving or receiving
of criticism.
We identify three delicate affective “areas” for the teacher and the students, where they come face to face,
where they share experiences with common and opposing facets – like both sides of a coin. These three
areas are: fairness, self-assertion, and the cohabitation of guide and judge within the teacher.
What follows is only a sample of writings on these questions. We are limiting ourselves to formulating
certain perceptions and indicating certain references for the purpose of drawing attention to questions
that we consider important.
Fairness
Students expect the evaluation of learning process to be fair and equitable (CSE, 1995, p. 59).
Teachers are responsible for the process and must therefore ensure it is fair for the student. This is a heavy
burden of responsibility that could become confusing (cf. Howe et Ménard, 1993, p. 62). A large part of
the difficulty resides in the exercise of judgment: how does one make a valid judgment, ensuring
treatment that is fair and equitable for students, while dealing with the subjectivity that is necessarily
present?
Self-assertion
In a learning process, the student’s self-esteem is often shaken up. He achieves mastery of a concept, a
principle, a theory or method, develops a certain amount of self-confidence and feels personal pride. He
must then turn around and immediately master another subject or a more complex task through training
Page 361 de 383
that includes mistakes or errors, which results in fear and self-doubts with regard to his ability to learn
and succeed.
The students hope that the following attitudes will be present in their teachers. They want to be treated in
a “respectful manner” and not in an “arrogant and disdainful” manner (CSE, 1995, p. 85); they want the
right to make mistakes and to learn from feedback resulting from these mistakes (ibid., p. 86); they want
teachers who can share in their pride for progress achieved (ibid.).
The formative evaluation is a situation where we should see complicity between students and teachers.
The evaluation of learning is also a situation where the teachers can assert themselves. They are the ones
who make judgments, who render their judgment. This is a type of power. The wording of the evaluation
judgment touches upon teachers’ concepts relative to the extent and exercise of their authority
(cf. Morissette, 1993).
The reconciliation of the roles of guide and judge
In collegial instruction, excluding standard ministerial examinations, the teachers in charge of student
training almost always carry out the evaluation of learning. The role of guide and judge are now the
responsibility of one and the same person. This situation can have its advantages but it can also cause
difficulties. We have identified two such difficulties:
—
How can the student feel confident in sharing his difficulties with the teacher, without fearing that
revelations made during the course of learning will impact the summative evaluation judgment?
—
How can the teacher be close to the student, to support him in his learning (not only from a
cognitive perspective but also an affective level) and yet be sufficiently “distant” to judge student
learning accurately? (cf. Mc Donald, 1993 et Wiggins, 1993)
Page 362 de 383
Alternate ways of designing and evaluating learning
Lecture notes by:
Jacques Laliberté, member of the Groupe de recherche-action PERFORMA, Université de Sherbrooke,
Pédagogie collégiale, vol. 8, n° 3, March 1995.
In the United States, limitations in the extremely widespread use of standardized tests have led specialists
and teachers to seek other ways of evaluating113 student learning. Another reason is the growing influence
of cognitivist and constructivist concepts of learning and the influence of a curriculum based on
competency development (Competence-based education) or, in broader terms, education based on
targeted results (Outcome-based education). This has had a major effect on our neighbours to the South,
impacting the way they view and implement evaluations of learning.
In February 1991, in an article entitled “Évaluation, dites-vous? Non, {assessment}...” and published in
Pédagogie collégiale (vol. 4, n° 3, p. 36-39), Paul Forcier analyzed the essential characteristics of the
reform of evaluation of learning practices in the United States. This article is still relevant today and
remains current; what started as an incipient trend has now grown into a widespread movement.
It is useful to keep in mind the American terminology found in the documentation. In much of the current
writing, the term assessment has a generic meaning and is used to describe all types of evaluations. Some
authors use the term to refer to the “new ways of evaluating” learning that we have just mentioned.
Underlying these “new ways” are concerns about evaluating what students can do with their knowledge,
skills and abilities, their attitudes and mindset (preoccupation with integration and transfer of learning);
evaluating their capacity to demonstrate mastery of a competency, to resolve a difficult problem and carry
out a complex task; evaluating their capacity for higher thought; evaluating their degree of achievement
as regards precise and known standards; and to make the evaluation as authentic as possible through the
contextualization of the tests, tasks and problems used for evaluation purposes.
The three descriptive documents presented here, including one recently published in the United States,
relate to this trend and identify new forms of evaluation that should inspire us and cause us to reflect on
our actions. All this is happening at a time when a climate of renewal is prevalent in colleges and when
many are questioning the way we currently design and perform evaluations of learning.
Catherine Taylor, (“Assessment for Measurement or Standards: The Peril and Promise
of Large-Scale Assessment Reform”, American Educational Research Journal, vol. 31,
no 2, summer 1994, p. 231-262.
In a recent article with a weighty title that implies a very technical perspective, Catherine Taylor
challenges us to make an in-depth reflection on the purpose of the evaluation of learning and in, the final
analysis, on the philosophy of education that underlies evaluation practices and instructional rating
systems currently used in academic institutions. Towards the end of the article, the author gets to the
heart of the matter by asking if we are going to continue to design tools to classify and compare students,
or will we develop and implement an evaluation system to help us determine if students are reaching
complex learning objectives. (Refers to p. 254) Further on, she adds that: “We must begin to believe that
the majority of students are fully capable of learning and succeeding and that the “dramatic differences”
113
In the American documentation, the expression “alternative assessment” is used to describe practices which are not
invariably new but which seem new relative to very widespread conventional practices. It is this context that I speak about
“new ways to evaluate”.
Page 363 de 383
we observe in student performances result from conditions that have no relationship to the student’s
ability to learn” (refers to p. 255). These conditions and differences must be taken into account.
This statement is another way of presenting the concept of ‘educability’ proposed by Meirieu as the
driving force the behind professional activity of the teacher. A natural corollary being: the appropriate
design and implementation of differentiated instruction, if we are serious about respecting the
heterogeneity of classroom groups.
The article by Catherine Taylor focuses on the evaluation of learning and relates primarily to
considerations of a far-reaching methodological nature: requirements for the validity and reliability of
tool design and the interpretation of results; the choice and use of criteria and standards; the nature and
connotations of the professional judgment to be exercised.
Taylor begins with the premise that in the United States, teachers and legislators are looking for systems
of assessment that require students to participate in problem solving and complex tasks. The tasks require
the recourse to higher thought, rather than the simple demonstration of discrete knowledge and the skill to
apply this knowledge (p. 232). The evaluation approaches, means and methods, which are being used
more and more frequently, are the authentic, performance and portfolio assisted evaluations.
According to the author, we must become aware that when it comes to large scale implementation of
evaluations, teachers and legislators ask that we design tests or tools that will provide two incompatible
end results:
a) Identify if students master the standards and desired performances; or are at least show progress
in this direction;
b) Provide relative measurements of students, schools and school districts or States in relation to an
output scale (p. 232). On this subject, Taylor fears that applying a model based on measurement
to performance assessment development on a large scale will ultimately undermine the efforts
made on a national scale to improve the quality of education for all students (p. 233).
In her article, Taylor compares the essential characteristics, major goals, practical and pedagogical
consequences of two models of evaluation of learning: the made-to-measure model (the primary model in
the United States for over sixty years) and the model based on standards (currently building strength in
the United States).
In the first model, we seek to identify observable differences in people. We postulate that we can situate
an individual, relative to a given characteristic or feature, and relative to the “normal” distribution curve.
This famous curve that gave birth to psychometric procedures used to establish the reliability of tests and
to ensure stringency and validity in the interpretation of results. (p. 236-242). In the made-to-measure
model, it is the individual differentiation and classification that take precedence over the identification of
precise student expectations. Taylor describes excellence by saying: “it is determined by the fact that
someone has a higher grade or score than all others who took the same exam”, or passed the same test, we
could add …
The model based on standard rests on four concepts:
—
we can identify general public standards and work toward reaching them;
—
the majority of students can assimilate and meet the standards;
—
very different student performances and demonstrations can reflect the same standards;
—
teachers can be trained to assimilate the standards and become reliable judges and consistent
observers of a variety of student performances (p. 243).
We see how these two models differ significantly from one another. The author, recalling and underlining
the limitations of traditional testing, also underlines the challenges facing theorists and experts in
Page 364 de 383
performance-based evaluations: to ensure the reliability and accuracy similar types of evaluations; to
identify essential performances for specific disciplines; to establish standards and criteria relative to these
performances; to obtain sample performances that reflect these standards and criteria; to communicate the
whole experience to the general public; … (p. 247-253). This will naturally entail several consequences
and requirements on the pedagogical plane (p. 254-259).
There seems to be a two-fold lesson in Taylor’s writings.
—
On the one hand, the type of evaluation we recommend and use must correspond to the educational
goals targeted;
—
On the other hand, a performance-based evaluation that is credible and provides results, must not
only relate to authentic (real life) situations and the fundamentals of a discipline; it must also contain
demanding criteria and high standards. In addition, it must take place in an educational environment
where everything is done to help students reach these standards and meet the criteria in their
productions or demonstrations that may vary from one student to another, yet remain intrinsically
adequate.
We are far from behaving automatically, or lowering standards…
Jean (Ed) MacGregor, “Student Self-Evaluation: Fostering Reflective Learning”, New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, no 56, winter 1993, 123 p.
Several commentators emphasize that through the judicious use of criteria and standards, a competencybased approach could contribute to developing students’ ability to self-evaluate (with thoroughness,
precision and without indulgence) their learning and behaviour. Those interested self-evaluation will
benefit from the article on this question in the periodical New Directions for Teaching and Learning. The
article presents elements to justify this teaching practice, including possible implementation methods, and
also creates an awareness of potential benefits for both students and teachers. The entire issue is a
worthwhile read. In addition to the preliminary note, it brings together seven different authors. Each
one’s contribution is worth reading and commenting on, however, we will limit ourselves to highlighting
only certain aspects of this collection of texts.
For Edith Kusnic and Mary Lou Finley, “the expression student self-evaluation refers to written
productions that come in many forms, and to the process that leads to this type of production by students.
As a process, self-assessment demands that students reflect on what they have learned and produce a
written work on the subject. Student self-evaluation is a powerful learning tool. Students’ written selfassessment provides a description and analysis for them and for us”. (p. 8).
Two fundamental characteristics stand out from this quotation: the importance of writing in student selfassessments and the relationship between the assessment and the quality of student learning. Throughout
the issue, these two facets are found in various forms.
In their article (p. 5-14), Kusnic and Finley point out, or let us infer some of the positive benefits of
exercises and tasks relating to students writing self-evaluations of their learning. This can:
—
help students use their knowledge;
—
help students develop the capacity for self-reflection and establish an active and meaningful rapport
with the subject matter in question;
—
help students strengthen their analytical abilities, their ability to summarize and evaluate; to find
meaning in what they have learned and to explore the connection between this knowledge and
previously acquired knowledge and ideas; to become more aware of their values and ways in which
they are developed; to provide in depth learning and establish links between students and the content
of their studies; to develop the capacity, competency and self-assurance necessary for effective
learning throughout their life;
Page 365 de 383
—
provide students with a new form of feedback on learning and useful data for evaluating the results
of education and instruction;
—
teach students to be at the centre and in control of their learning experience (refer to p. 5 to 9).
For his part, Carl J. Waluconis (p. 15-33) describes various contexts for student self-evaluations. Selfevaluations can be designed to:
—
cover a short period of time;
—
refer to work that is spread out over several weeks;
—
relate to the entire course;
—
cover more than one course.
The author supplements the article with excerpts of texts written by students.
To conclude this rather quick presentation, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to the appendix
(p. 101-117), which contains:
—
examples of tasks, advice and directives for student self-evaluation exercises;
—
examples of wide-ranging student self-evaluations;
—
lists of additional resources of theoretical works on student development and the value of selfreflection; practical approaches and studies that refer specifically to student self-evaluations.
It should be noted that the examples provided in this appendix are taken from the post secondary level,
with the majority, if not all, referring to the first years of university studies.
Grant P. Wiggins, Assessing Student Performance. Exploring the Purpose and Limits of
Testing, San Francisco (CA), Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993, XX and p. 316
In response to the question: “In the American documentation that you have read recently, is there is one
book in particular that you would recommend for the evaluation of learning of students in a competencybased approach?”, my reply would be to read the work of Grant P. Wiggins, Assessing Student
Performance...”. I suspect that this book can, in many ways, help deepen our understanding of what
American specialists call an assessment when they refer to new trends in the conception and
implementation of evaluations of student learning. Moreover, Assessing Student Performance... can
provide a very rich source of inspiration for the professional practice of teachers and educational advisors
working with them.
We cannot do justice to the contents of the work here. However, to provide as tangible an outline as
possible, I would like to draw attention to certain topics selected by Wiggins from which every reader can
benefit depending on his personal level of interest, concerns and beliefs.
1. We find a critique on the traditional testing that is widely used in the United States. Standardized tests
do have value but they are limited in the following ways: an unjustified focus on simple factual
knowledge; the simplification and removal of tasks from their contexts in order to ensure greater
precision in rating; a creationist concept of intelligence that translates into evaluation practices where
it is more important to classify students in relation to each other rather than the quality of the
performance relative to clearly identified standards; … (refers mainly to chapters 1, 3, 4 and 5).
2. We promote a broad and exacting concept of assessment defined as “a complete analysis of a
performance, a personal analysis based on a judgment and comprising several aspects.” As expressed
over thirty years ago by Lee Cronbach, professor at Stanford University and dean of American
psychometrics: an assessment requires the use of a variety of procedures, relies mainly on observation
(of the performance) and requires the integration of diverse information in a summary judgment.”
(p. 13)
Page 366 de 383
3. From the point of view of assessment, the professor becomes more of an ally to the student than a
judge (p. 14). Wiggins states that “justifiable assessments do not differ from tests simply because they
are more complex. Questions relative to rights and accountability are crucial: in an adequate
assessment, student rights come first” (p. 22). What is the nature of these rights? Wiggins helps us
understand this through the help of two documents: the first is a set of principles adopted by the New
Zealand Ministry of Education that puts assessment at the service of better learning (p. 26 et 27); the
second is a Declaration of the rights of students with regard to assessments that Wiggins himself
wrote (p. 28) and presented to several teachers in workshops, but regretfully, was not well-received…
4. When we want to evaluate student’s intellectual progress, we are stymied by eight dilemmas that
Wiggins summarizes (p. 37-45). For example:
—
we must be concerned with what the students know, but we must also assess if the knowledge
has meaning for them;
—
we must establish a balance between an evaluation of the mastery students have over ideas and
projects of others and an assessment of their mastery over their own ideas and projects.
5. Wiggins identifies nine concepts that should be considered if we wish to implement assessment
systems; among these:
—
an authentic system of evaluation must rest on criteria and known standards that are clear,
public and not arbitrary;
—
the degree of student comprehension is better evaluated by following up on the questions they
ask rather than limiting ourselves to rating their answers;
—
we should evaluate the intellectual integrity of students and other mindsets they might have;
beyond cases of cheating, we should also take into account student capacity to recognize the
gaps in their knowledge and to express their perplexity with regard to a particular question or
problem.
6. To ensure the evaluation has a positive effect on the student’s motivation to learn, Wiggins makes
several recommendations. Among these:
— evaluate student progress and achievements; for this, you should base your ratings on models of
exemplary performance that students are pursuing, each on his own path (p. 171 et 172);
— design an evaluation system in which the proportional weighting can vary: at the beginning, we
can give greater preponderance to effort and progress; then subsequently, focus more keenly on
performance and achievement (p. 172 and 173).
7. The author attaches a great importance to student feedback. He compares the characteristics of
effective feedback to ineffective feedback (p. 198 et 199). He reminds us of the requirements that any
information system, designed to provide maximum support for performance, must have. Eight
requirements are proposed by T. F. Gilbert in his work entitled Human Competence (New York,
McGraw Hill, 1978, p. 178 and 179). They are presented in the form of eight stages going from the
identification of expected achievements (n° 1), to an activity designed to bring specific corrective
measures to poor performance (n° 8), while describing the manner in which the performance will be
evaluated and reasons for the procedure (n° 3) and the identification of people with exemplary
performances and the available resources to be used so we can become exemplary in our own
performances (n° 5).
8. The last point I would like to highlight: the work is interesting and useful based on the examples and
tools it features:
—
examples of complex tasks;
Page 367 de 383
—
a list of criteria formulated by Lauren Resnick and that we can connect to higher order thinking,
p. 215);
—
a list of criteria to judge the authenticity of tests and exams that target the evaluation of student
intellectual abilities (p. 239 et 240);
—
a list of performance standards (p. 286-288).
After reading this work, it is not surprising that Grant Wiggins wrote a widely distributed article entitled:
“Creating Tests Worth Taking” (Educational Leadership, vol. 49, n° 8, May 1992, p. 26-33) and has
since become a figurehead within the movement actively promoting “authentic” evaluations.
Source : Le Relais. Journal pédagogique de l’Assemblée générale, Performa collégial, Université de
Sherbrooke, vol. 4, n° 1, January 1995, p. 37-49.
Page 368 de 383
The principles of evaluation in competency-based learning (CBL) linked to the principles of CBL115
The preceding sections allowed us to analyze certain aspects of the formative evaluation and the
certification (summative) evaluation. In this section, you will find a synthesis of certain principles of
evaluation in competency-based learning. Some principles refer specifically to the formative evaluation,
others the summative evaluation, and some are applicable to both types. The principles are presented in
order to establish a link between the principles of evaluation in competency-based learning [CBL] and
the CBL principles discussed in Chapter 6. In the table, the last principles of evaluation are not placed
against the CBL principles because they are of a general nature.
Coherence
We cannot remove evaluations from learning. Evaluations, just like teaching, exist to
support learning.
We should be able to observe a similarity between the integrating tasks used for learning
and those used for formative evaluations in the preparation stage for the end of the cycle
and in the summative evaluation at the end of the cycle.
Global
Application
Global
Integration
115
The evaluation of a competency is achieved through integrating tasks that involve all the
components (abilities) of the competency.
To evaluate the integration of a competency, we should use the evaluation criteria
defined in the specifications for that competency. Contrary to a widespread
misconception in competency-based learning, evaluations do present a greater degree of
subjectivity than purely objective evaluations, such as multiple choice questions or short
replies. This explains why integrating evaluation tasks are more inclusive. Performing
more subjective evaluations will add to the stress levels for both the teacher and the
student. Educators will have to adjust to these new forms of evaluation.
Translated from François Lasnier, Réussir la formation par compétences, Guérin, 2000, p. 229-232.
Page 369 de 383
Construction
One cannot dissociate the formative evaluation during the course of learning and the
summative evaluation at end of cycle. There must be a continuum. The formative
evaluation, even though it often relates to aspects of the competency (developmental
stage), must also include formal formative evaluations relating to the integration of the
components of the competency (integration stage).
In formative evaluations, we should evaluate a component or a competency using more
than one criterion. The judgment on competency development is rendered when the
evaluation criteria are applied. A judgment on the development of the components of
the competency (abilities) is based on the component evaluation criteria resulting from
the demonstrations connected to each component of the competency. We should also
evaluate the learning strategies associated with a component or a competency.
In order to respect the spirit of the formative evaluation in competency-based learning,
the learner must clearly understand the evaluation criteria prior to the actual evaluation,
so that he may prepare for the accomplishment of the evaluation task or learning task.
Ideally, in formal evaluations, the learner must have on hand, the descriptive evaluation
grid to be used for the summative evaluation at the end of the cycle or any other grid
used for formative evaluations.
Meaning
The evaluation of a competency is done by placing the student in circumstances that
conform to the realization context and asking him to carry out meaningful tasks.
The student must feel responsible for his own evaluation; he must be involved in selfevaluation exercises.
Rotation
As an evaluator, we make a judgment on the degree of development of the components
of a competency and on the competency as a whole.
Although the evaluation must be complete, in a formative evaluation, all components of
a competency must be evaluated by integrative tasks in order to facilitate their
integration. This does not exclude occasionally carrying out evaluations, based on
learning activities that focus on only one component, to correct errors and improve its
utilization.
Integration
The evaluation in competency-based learning requires that we focus mainly on the
evaluation of the competency and its components and not on declarative knowledge
used to activate the competency. This knowledge will generally be evaluated indirectly,
because it is integrated in the components (a competency does not work in a vacuum,
i.e. it manifests itself in a specific context associated with a family of situations and the
totality of knowledge linked to a given disciplinary content). Thus, the evaluator does
not simply want to know if the student has appropriated some declaratory knowledge,
but if he knows how to apply this knowledge. (This principle does not exclude the
possibility of evaluating disciplinary content on occasion within a formative
evaluation.)
In competency-based learning, the complexity of evaluating comes from the fact that
we must evaluate a complex situation linked to a competency that combines
components of an intellectual, emotional, social and sometimes psychomotor nature.
However, the use of precise criteria and appropriate grids greatly facilitates the task.
The principal danger is to evaluate a series of criteria without taking into account the
integrating aspect of the components of a competency (possible solution: to take both
the process and the product into account and include criteria relative to integration). To
Page 370 de 383
evaluate the acquisition of a competency through the use of an integrating task does not
consist in designing an examination that covers the totality of the disciplinary content
(as was done in the 1940’s), but rather developing an evaluation that validates the
integration of the components of a competency. This principle requires the choice of a
disciplinary content to develop an integrating task.
Distinction
The evaluation in competency-based learning should relate to the process (how the
evaluated person carries out the task while calling upon the components of a
competency) and to the finished product (qualitative results of the task). Thus, we
require evaluation criteria that allow for a judgment on both these facets of the
evaluation.
Iteration
A competency must be evaluated several times to allow the student to correct his errors
and acquire stability in its acquisition.
General
comments
Competency-based learning requires a criteria-based evaluation, i.e. one that uses
criteria that specify the expected results. We recognize that a criteria-based evaluation
and normative evaluation are not in direct opposition, except in their underlying
principles. As a result, a criteria-based evaluation could very well be transposed into a
normative evaluation, if we use a numerical scale corresponding to the various levels of
the criteria-based grid. In fact, what distinguishes these types of evaluation is more the
goal of the evaluator than the procedure used to develop the measurement tools. In a
criteria-based evaluation, we want the learner to be able to compare his degree of
mastery of a competency based on a description of the various levels of a precise
criterion, i.e. an expected result. These criteria constitute a reference for the learner
relative to what he must master and improve upon, whereas in a normative evaluation,
regardless of the measurement procedure used, we want to be able to classify those
being evaluated from the strongest to the weakest, or by intervals. In this case, the
results for the person evaluated are interpreted according to standards (table of
standards, usually detailed by means of percentiles) that compare them to others who
were evaluated, rather than rate them on their level of mastery. The interpretation of
student results based on a comparison with the class average is also a good example of
a normative evaluation. The normative evaluation does not harmonize with the concept
of competency-based learning.
Criteria used to evaluate a competency in the summative evaluation and with certain
formal formative evaluations are more or less derived from evaluation criteria linked to
components found in demonstrations. Criteria for the evaluation of a competency are
more global than evaluation criteria for the components. They are the result of a
selection of a group of evaluation criteria used for the components. They can also be
designed to allow for a global judgment on the degree of acquisition of the competency.
It is difficult to incorporate more than 7 criteria (± 2), unless the evaluator can make
several observations successively, as with interactive tasks or training in the workplace.
If the task is evaluated through direct observation (in real time), it is difficult to
effectively observe more than 5 criteria at the same time (even if the number of subjects
being observed is very small).
General
comments
(cont’d)
Given that learning is gradual (we learn through successive layering), the evaluation of
a competency should not to be seen as a dichotomy (success-failure), but should be able
to describe the mastery of a competency or a component in varying degrees. A
Page 371 de 383
‘dichotomy-based’ vision of evaluation could negatively impact the learner’s
motivation (you are a good student or you are not). The rating, if it is used, is done
through the use of descriptive grids that are qualitative or qualitative-quantitative,
depending on the rating system appropriate for the environment. We are currently
seeing a move towards the abolition of rating. It is often replaced by criteria-based grids
with descriptive scales identifying the varying degrees of acquisition relative to each
criterion used in the evaluation of the competency.
A descriptive evaluation grid can clearly identify the expected threshold of success.
Contrary to what has been said and written, an evaluation criterion does not represent a
minimal threshold of success. The threshold of success is set according to the levels in
the evaluation grid and, therefore, according to the levels of mastery of a given
criterion. We must however be very careful relative to the setting of the expected
threshold of success. It is practically impossible to set a threshold with certainty
without having personally experienced the instruction, training and the evaluation of a
competency. Consequently, it is strongly recommended to validate the use of a
descriptive grid and to set the threshold of success for a criterion only after a good
experience of it. As for the weighting of the criteria to guide the validation, the trend is
to not assign weight to them because it interferes with the global judgment regarding
the degree of mastery of the competency. However, not weighting the criteria increases
the subjectivity of the evaluation.
During the evaluation of a competency or of a component of an affective nature, we
must consider constraints relating to ethics. Given that commitment to an attitude or a
behaviour rests on a system of personal values, we can only require evaluation
activities from the learner that correspond to the primary levels of the affective domain
(receipt of information, response or discussion on the attitude or behaviour, evaluation
of the impact of the attitude, identification of the advantages and disadvantages for
oneself and others, recognition of desired behaviours, choice of immediate action).
All things considered and relative to the affective competencies, we can choose
affective abilities from high taxonomic levels for learning activities, but to evaluate
them would be highly debatable, except in rare cases, as in the case of professional
competencies and those in certain technical or university programs directly connected
to the profession.
Page 372 de 383
Basic definition
of principles relating to competency-based learning116
Global:
analysis of elements starting from a complete situation (complex situation, overall
picture, global approach).
Construction:
actualization of previously acquired knowledge, development of links between prior
knowledge and new learning, organization of information.
Rotation:
global —specific — global;
competency — abilities— competency;
integrating task —specific learning activity — integrating task.
Application:
learning by doing.
Distinction:
between the content and the process for a competency.
Meaning:
meaningful and motivating situations for the learner.
Coherence:
coherent relationship between teaching activities, learning activities, evaluation
activities and the competency.
Integration:
components under study are connected to each other and to the competency; the
learner develops a competency by using the components of the competency in an
integrated manner.
Iteration :
the learner is subjected on many occasions to the same type of integrating tasks
connected to the competency or the same disciplanary content.
116
Translated from François Lasnier, “Un modèle intégré pour l’apprentissage d’une compétence”, Pédagogie collégiale,
vol. 15, no 1, October 2001, p. 28-33.
Page 373 de 383
From planning stages to the evaluation plan
for the final course test
When the time comes for preparing the evaluation plan for final course test, many decisions have already
been made in the first stages of the program development process. Choices to be made for the evaluation
of learning rely on this previous information.
To clarify the context of decisions relative to determining the final course test, it is wise to keep in mind
the whole development process with regard to the program as well as the course. The information
collected in these stages has a cumulative effect that impacts both the context and the content of the
evaluation plan for the final course test.
We will outline the development process, first for the program and then for the course. After this, a
clarification of each stage is provided, followed by a realization context (contextual tools for assistance
purposes) and accompanied by examples in the last column of the table below.
To draft the evaluation plan for the final course test, the teacher must have on hand all the relevant
documents or refer to the stages of the development process to validate his choices in the evaluation of
learning.
Page 374 de 383
Development process
1. With regard to the program
Analysis of the totality of the
competencies
—
Analysis using one of the
competencies
—
Overall picture of the
competencies
—
Choice of essential
contents
Explanation
Local interpretation of competencies
in order to ensure a univocal reading
Realization context
—
Based on
ministerial
specifications
—
With the help of
tools to analyze a
competency
—
With the help of the
competency matrix
—
When one
competency requires
the review of
another competency,
it should be labelled
as “improvement,
enrichment or
recall”
—
Local development of the third
column of the ministerial
specifications
—
“Recall” also applies to essential
contents
—
Distribution of the competencies —
into six program trimesters
Tool: program
matrix
—
Identification of the number of —
hours by competency, by course
Logical diagram of
the competencies
—
Logical diagram of
the course
—
Using the table
provided by the
ministère
Definition of the training axes
—
Learning axes
—
Grouping of competencies
around the axes
Distribution of the competencies
over time
Relationship objective / course
—
Shows how competencies will
be developed in the courses
Page 375 de 383
2. With regard to the course
—
Clarification of the competency
Analysis of the training objective
—
Meaning and range of the
competency
—
Univocal interpretation
—
For one competency in the
course
—
For several competencies
in the course
—
—
Overall picture of the
competencies introduced in
the course
—
Determine a final
integrating objective
Establish links between the
competencies or components of
the competencies and justify
them (in order to ensure
integration)
Corresponds to the competency in the
case of a course/a competency
If a competency is spread out over
more than one course or if one course
contributes to the development of
more than one competency, we must
ensure that the desired integrating
objective corresponds to the
meaningful portion of the competency
and respects its nature
—
Integrating diagram
—
To illustrate
graphically (overall
picture) interrelation
of the competencies
by identifying the
links between them
An objective is considered
an “integrating objective”
when:
—
it coordinates
achievements,
contexts and
practical
applications,
processing
behaviours that
seem to be the most
determining and
characteristic.
—
it reveals what is
essentially at stake
in the training
—
it develops a
dynamic, stable and
durable system of
knowledge (what,
how and when).
Page 376 de 383
Choice of learning objects
Unfolding of the learning
General evaluation of learning
strategy for a course
—
Identify essential learning that
—
must be mastered in order to
achieve the integrating objective
—
Learning objects are drawn from
the essential content (identified
at the time of the study of each
competency)
—
When there are several
competencies in a course, the
student must retain the essential
content for each part of the
competency that will become
learning objects during a given
course.
—
The “improvement, enrichment
or recall activities” are also
essential content.
—
Establish the progression of
—
learning targeting the mastery of
learning defined in II.B
—
The last sequence provides
unquestionable clues regarding
the content of the final course
test
—
Please refer to I.A
and I.B
Integrating diagram
of the course
Choice of course
section:
o
Holistic
approach
o
Analytical
approach
A general evaluation strategy identifies
for each learning sequence:
—
The final integration objective
for each section of the course
—
The list of evaluation activities
—
The objects of evaluation
—
The means of evaluating
—
The types of evaluation
—
Weighting
Page 377 de 383
Evaluation plan for the final
course test
A. Analyze the training
objective
The evaluation plan is based on the
choices made in the activity planning
stages developed earlier
—
How are the various
components of the competency
integrated
—
What competency are we
referring to?
—
Which type of production
results from this objective?
1. Characterize the training
objective
2. Identify the true nature of
this objective
B.
Select and render
—
operational the objects to
be evaluated
Link to the integrating objective —
that defines the expected result
at the end of the course
1.
Identify essential objects
—
and learning for evaluation
Link to essential content of each
training sequence
—
—
2.
Select indicators that allow
for the observation of
—
demonstrations of this
learning
Not all objects of learning are
objects of evaluation. Do not
evaluate what has been
previously evaluated.
Nature of the indicators:
process, product, speech
—
The indicators are actions that
demonstrate mastery of the
competency.
3.
Identify the evaluation
criteria
—
Expected quality is directly
linked to indicators
4.
Specify the realization
context
—
Specifies circumstances when
the competency should be used,
for what purpose and in what
environment
—
Analysis of the
components of the
competency and the
performance criteria
See the progression
of learning in the
course sections
To ensure students
are guided towards
the action, use verbs
in the present tense.
Page 378 de 383
C.
Select evaluation
methods or the type of
test and design the
evaluation tools
1.
Determine the most
appropriate means of
evaluation for the type of
training objective
2.
D.
1.
2.
Develop the tools which
will be used for the
evaluation
—
—
Identify the evaluation task or
choose the methods that
conform to the criteria of
integration, authenticity and
focus on the competency as
much as possible.
Corresponds to the all
documentation and activities
relating to the evaluation
methods
—
The methods used
must allow for the
evaluation of
integrated learning.
—
Concept to keep in
mind: the authentic
evaluation
—
Select a problem
situation
The observation grid is made up
—
indicators, criteria and a rating scale
that makes it possible to carry out an
Design the necessary tools:
analytical correction by examining the
observation and correction
product, the process, the speech and
grid
the attitude according to each criteria
Develop a rating scale
of evaluation.
relative to the evaluation
criteria
Develop tools to assist in
the evaluation judgment
The observation
grid is a formative
evaluation tool and
the correction grid
is a summative
evaluation tool.
The evaluation of learning at collegial level: from course to program117
This text is an excerpt of a research file that is impossible to overlook. A product of Performa, it is
available at every college and at Université de Sherbrooke’s website.
A Performa collegial file containing the following documents:
— Présentation du dossier, [s. l.], [s. l.], April 1996, Presentation, Table of contents, iii and 16 p.
— Fascicule I. La problématique, [s. l.], avril 1996, Présentation, Table des matières, ii et 66 p.u
Fascicule II. Cadre de référence. Première partie : Les questions préalables. Première édition, [s.
l.], April 1996, Presentation, Table of contents, List of tables, ii and 85 p.
— Fascicule III-IV – 1er volet. Avenues quant au comment faire. Comment faire l’évaluation des
apprentissages. Comment faire l’animation pédagogique sur ce thème. [s. l.], January 1997,
Presentation, Table of contents, vi and multiple pagination.
— Fascicule III-IV – 2e volet. Avenues quant au comment faire. Comment faire l’évaluation des
apprentissages. Comment faire l’animation pédagogique sur ce thème. [s. l.], January 1997,
Presentation, Table of contents and multiple pagination.
Page 379 de 383
— Appendices, [s. l.], January 1997, Table of contents and multiple pagination.
Notes on the authors of the texts
Content description
— Information on the file: its origin, recipients, content, format, usefulness and limitations, p. 1-7;
— Work perspectives that are used to study the question of evaluation of learning with teaching
personnel: A systematic approach p. 8-11, an approach of “research-action”, p. 12-16.
o
The evaluation of learning as a component of teaching that is linked to other components
such as: a) the orientation of the training and the course; b) planning relative to the course
and relative to the program; c) the pedagogical and didactic interventions and d) a critical
review of practices, p. 3-5;
o
Principal participants in the evaluation of learning :
The teachers: perceptions and feelings that a number of them share in evaluating
learning; concepts, beliefs and values on which their practices rest; the impact that the
evaluation of learning can have on their professional activity, p. 6-10;
the students: their perceptions and feelings on the evaluation of learning; the impact the
evaluation is likely to have on them and their expectations, which were discussed during a
consultation held by the Conseil supérieur de l’éducation on this subject, p. 11-14;
The relational and affective dimensions that characterize the evaluation of learning are
two-fold: how students perceive the teacher-student relationship and three delicate
affective issues to be taken into account: the fairness of the evaluation process, the selfassertion of the two groups of participants and the cohabitation of the guide and the judge
within the role of teacher, p. 15-18;
— The practical context for the evaluation of learning marked by :
o
The evolution of the teaching profession, p. 23-29;
o
The paradigm shift in the world of evaluation of learning, p. 30-43;
o
Certain outstanding features of collegial instruction in Québec, p. 44-47;
o
The evaluation of learning in collegial instruction in Québec, p. 48-55;
— The problem divided into two segments:
o
What is the problem and how to resolve it, p. 56-60;
o
How does research provide elements for the solution to the problem, p. 61-66.
— The concepts and beliefs affect the frame of reference relative to the evaluation of learning: an
evaluation of learning marked by the new paradigm, p. 15-17; an evaluation carried out in a
professional manner, p. 17; an evaluation carried out from a program perspective, p. 17-18.
Comment : The pagination in this booklet jumps from page 5 to page 15 as this space had been reserved
for other concepts and beliefs listed in the table of contents. However, on page 5 it is noted that the
drafting of sections A. 1 and A. 2 were not yet complete and will be “distributed at a later date”;
— The nature, function and follow-up to the evaluation of learning are detailed in the 2nd portion of
this booklet under three main headings: a) what is evaluation of learning, p. 21-36; b) for whom
and for what purpose should the evaluation of learning be used (and not used), p. 37-42; c) where
does the evaluation of learning lead, p. 43-44;
Page 380 of 383
— The units of training (course and program) and the objects of evaluation are the focus of the third
section, p. 45-64. The objects of evaluation are extensively analyzed in this section, p. 47-64.
— Distinctions are established between objects of the formative evaluation and those of the
summative evaluation. The author states that “these two types of objects of evaluation are
included within a network of components relative to what the training must contain (goals,
learning objectives, minimum requirements), what the training is (training effectively presented
learning effectively achieved) and the ways in which these results can be evaluated (indicators
and demonstrations of the learning acquired by the student)” p. 47;
— Six general principles were retained as guiding principles “to guide all evaluations of learning:
Two general perspectives (professionalism and collective responsibility); the assertion of the twofold purpose of the evaluation of learning (support and certification); two principles referring to
ethical requirements of summative evaluations and formative evaluations; and a last principle
relating to the methodological requirements of the operation”. p. 66 The first part of section p. 6669 is devoted to listing the six general principles, the connection between these principles and
their origin. The second part p. 70-85 deals with the use of the general principles. This use is
summarized as: “Each individual general principle is used with a certain number of precise
principles. In this way, the system comprises 37 principles in all: 6 general principles and
31 secondary principles that further explain the meaning of the first 6. It is the fourth general
principle relating to the ethical requirements of the summative evaluation that produces the
greatest number secondary principles, a total of 12, grouped around four topics: fairness,
accuracy, equity and the appearance of these qualities” p. 70;
— General suggestions [N = 5] on teaching activities for the evaluation of learning and the
comprehensive program assessment (CPA);
— Integrated learning: A series of documents on teaching activities for this theme and a second
series on means of intervention and components of reflection relative to the problem of
integrating the learning and/or relative to the frame of reference for this concept;
— The evaluation of learning: Tools for teaching activities; a document dealing with the planning
activities for the whole of the evaluation of leaning and a series of documents suggesting alternate
venues for the formative evaluation;
— The development of a summative evaluation tool: Tools for teaching activities that facilitate
reflection on the relative importance of criteria and their use; and other material to help develop
and draft a summative evaluation tool; a series of documents recommending components for a
frame of reference on the methodological aspects of the evaluation of learning, particularly from
a summative perspective;
— The CPA merits elaborate handling: a) tools for teaching activities; b) information concerning
the official guidelines for a CPA; c) focus on the dynamics and results of work carried out within
the collegial network on the CPA; d) components for a frame of reference on the CPA;
e) documents concerning the “exit profile” as a reference for selecting CPA objects; f) materials
that could prove useful when it comes to developing a CPA or performing a critical review.
Descriptors
Comprehensive program assessment / evaluation of learning/ formative evaluation / summative
evaluation / teacher training / integrated learning / teacher improvement / teaching profession / exit profile
/ research-action
Page 381 of 383
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
—
Given that the title of the file is “The evaluation of learning at collegial level: from course to
program”, we should not be surprised to see that the comprehensive program assessment (CPA) is
a subject developed at length. Approximately two thirds of Booklet III-IV – 2nd section is devoted
exclusively to this topic. It is also discussed, directly and indirectly in the 1st section of the
Booklet. Two others sections recommend “paths” on the road to evaluation of learning.
—
In addition, all thoughts on the subject of the CPA, all recommendations and practical suggestions
must relate to the frame of reference for evaluations presented in Booklet II. The authors develop
their thoughts based on “prerequisite questions” dealing with certain realities or aspects such as:
nature, role and follow-up of learning evaluations; the units of training and objects of evaluation;
the guiding principles in administering evaluations. All things considered, Booklet II allows for
an even greater clarification of the theoretical foundation of actions relative to the CPA.
—
The official guidelines for a CPA [cf. Booklet III-IV – 2nd portion, Doc. E.2.1, 4 p.], in section
E.4 of the 2nd section of Booklet III-IV identify components for a frame of reference relative to
the CPA. Three documents, respectively dated March, June and September 1996, facilitate
conceptualization and are recommended by the authors of file # 4. Two definitions of a CPA are
suggested, then developed further in the June and September 1996 documents:
o
“The CPA is a summative evaluation activity whose objective is to attest to the
integration of essential learning by the student at the end of a study program”. id., “One
step closer towards a frame of reference on the CPA”, Doc. E.4.2].
o
“The comprehensive program assessment” within a program is a summative evaluation
activity whose goal is to attest the level of development of the competencies of graduates
at the end of the study program — development of competencies resulting from the
integration by the student of the learning acquired in the program”. [id., “an operational
definition of the CPA”, Doc E.4.3]. Let us note that in the presentation of this second
definition, Cécile D’Amour states she is hoping “to establish a junction between two
types of CPA formulation: One based on integrated learning and the other based on
competencies [ibid.]
o
In addition and in keeping with this definition the authors propose elements for reflection
and make suggestions:

general work prospects in the CPA file [id., Doc. E.4.1, p. 3];

the concept of the evaluation of learning that must be present for the
development and implementation of a CPA [id., Doc. E.4.1, p. 1-3 et p. 10 et 11;
Doc. E.4.2, p. 6-10];

the relationship between a CPA and integrated learning [id., Doc. E.4.1, p. 6-7];

the development of comprehensive program assessments, their validation,
testing and evaluation [id., Doc. E.4.1, p. 8 and 9 and all of document E.4.2,
11 p.]
— The CPA made its appearance in collegial instruction in 1993, without any kind of groundwork
and without any precise details other than those that could be found analyzing College Education
Regulations (CER, 1993). Participants in the collegial network, particularly educational advisors
and academic deans had to gradually provide learning models of a CPA or what they thought a
CPA should be. The file includes background on the initial arduous progression of this question.
Education historians would be very interested and could benefit from an analysis of the
documentary sections collected by the authors that validate certain theoretical advances but also
Page 382 of 383
from the variegated portrait (no negative connotation intended) of concrete initiatives taken in a
number of colleges relative to the CPA. The principal texts and documents are:
o
two working papers reflecting current thinking and concerns of the Groupe de travail
PERFORMA [cf. Appendices 6.2 a et b];
o
a presentation of the main trends and characteristics brought to light in collegial
institutions on the CPA according to three axes: regulatory, conceptual and procedural
[cf. Booklet III-IV, 2nd portion, Doc. E.3.1, June 1996, 14 p.];
o
the draft of a typology of practices and documented work relative to the development of
the CPA, April 1996 [id., Doc. E.3.2, 2 p.];
o
a list of works undertaken outside the collegial framework, dated February 1996: at
Fédération des cégeps, at Performa and Délégation collégiale (Regroupement des
colleges Performa) as well as the Association québécoise de pédagogie collégiale, AQPC
[id., Doc. E.3.3, 2 p.];
o
an analysis of the current status relative to the CPA dated February 1996 [id., Doc. E.3.4,
7 p.];
o
a synthesis of material coming from the collegial network and used for case studies on
CPA within the framework of improvement courses on CPA by Performa in 1996 [id.,
Doc. E.3.5, 4 p.]. Concerning this improvement session, the following information is also
provided in the booklet that contains the Appendix:
o
outlines of the September 1996 seminars on CPA [Appendix 4.1, 3 p.]; Evaluation of the
seminars [Appendix 4.2, 7 p.].
— For those who would like to organize information sessions, teaching and improvement activities
on the CPA, the following material is available:
o
suggestions by the members of the Performa work group on the evaluation of leaning
with suggestions on improving sessions offered to teaching personnel on the evaluation
of learning [cf. Booklet III-IV, 1st section, Doc. A.1 a, 3 p.];
o
two types of practical exercises to facilitate sensitization and teaching improvement
activities [id., Doc. A.1 b, 4 p.];
o
“problem-based learning” and “cooperative learning” as pertinent educational strategies
for teaching improvement activities of [id., Doc. A.1 c et d];
o
“case studies: inductive and deductive approach” excerpt from participation booklet at
Performa seminars on the CPA, September 1996 [id., Doc. A.1 e];
o
“educational goals of general training” [cf. Booklet III-IV, 2nd section, Doc. E.2.2, 7 p.];
o
“overall picture: training-learning activities with integrated results”: two diagrams
developed during Performa seminars on CPA September 1996 [cf. Booklet III-IV,
1st section, Doc. B.2.3, 3 p.];
o
continuum and categorization of integration objectives [id., B.2.4a, 3 p.];
o
“key competencies in designing exit profiles that lead to the development of a CPA in an
economic and equivalent fashion “ [id., Doc. B.2.4 b, 2 p.];
o
“to plan learning evaluations within a course or program” [id., Doc. C.2.1 a, 2 p.].
Page 383 of 383